DEVELOPING, the US Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade (is it cry havoc?)

This is bizarre, https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1586360298402942983?s=61&t=KdkZ8y-lPirN3haQblJDcg https://twitter.com/kmkirschner/status/1586366698218741761?s=61&t=OMRR87ri44L1A0JCaOjL3w Vivid vividbleau

@493 I think there's something to that, but historical explanations always need lots more nuance. We've been living in cities for a few thousand years and in nation-states for a few hundred -- so what's new? What's changed? I can think of two big changes in the past three decades that have really shaped the world as we know it today. One, the rise of the truly global economy. Corporations are trans-national -- they don't have any national affiliations. They span the globe with subsidiaries and contractors everywhere. The interconnctedness of business has been good for lots of people -- as Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen put it, "development is freedom." But the lower income social groups within the Global North see everyone's lives getting better except theirs, and that's going to stoke a lot of resentment. The globalization of capital (and of course of labor) goes together with a shift in where people live. People have lived in cities for maybe 10,000 years at the most, but for most of human history, more people lived outside of cities than inside of them. The globalization of capital has led to a world where more people live in cities than live in rural communities. This is really evident if you drive across the US, coast to coast. Rural communities have just been devastated. People leave, businesses fail, farms are bought by agribusinesses, hospitals close, general stores close, etc. It's just heartbreaking. A consequence of these shifts is that people tend, less and less, to know people with political views who disagree with them. If you're not friends with liberals (or conservatives), and don't even work with any, and there aren't any where you work and live, and all you know about them is what Fox News (or MSNBC) tells you about them, it's a lot harder to see them as fellow citizens and much easier to see them as existential threats to everything you hold dear. The other is the rise of social media and online communities. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Tiktok make money by harnessing our emotions and their algorithms are shaped to reward people for clicking over and over again. (It's the main commercial use of the old experiments in how to get a rat addicted to pressing an electric bar.) These platforms make money by dividing us against each other and making us hate each other. We end up forming echo chambers, each with its own sense of reality. UD is a microcosm of this: to the intelligent design supporters, evolutionists just look bonkers -- as if we're just not in touch with reality. And of course intelligent design supporters look the same to evolutionists. That's why we have the same sterile, stale debates every single day, all day -- there's no shared sense of reality that can be used for building consensus. We're more interdependent than ever before and yet more opposed to each other than ever before. It's a recipe for disaster. We've managed to hold on by the skin of our teeth so far. Eventually, something's going to give: an election will be contested, there will public protests, there will be armed supporters on both sides, someone is going to get scared, and a lot of people are going to die. PyrrhoManiac1

SG at 486, My Outrage Meter has been broken for the last few days. You should know that some people are not Pavlov's dog. Meaning trained by the media to respond a certain way to certain events. I have trained myself to ignore these events because they - The Media - are hoping a lot of people will click on this or that. I don't. And if I do, it's long after the initial story appears. relatd

“I don’t know for a fact that he had deeply held conservative political views, “ I think there was some reporting as it relates to QAnon but then there was reporting that he was a nudist Castro protester what ever the heck that means ?Anyway for myself I have found it beneficial to wait a week or so in situations like this, I have found that the first news reports usually are wrong. Vivid vividbleau

@494

The nudist activist was a conservative? Conservative what? I don’t know much about the guy so perhaps you are right, time for some research on my part.

I don't know for a fact that he had deeply held conservative political views, but his social media displays concerns with government-sanctioned pedophilia and with massive election fraud. Those are pervasive concerns in some parts of the right-wing culture in the US these days. But he was also (I'm willing to venture) also mentally unwell. That's all I know for now. PyrrhoManiac1

“But when a mentally unwell conservative attacks Pelosi’s husband, it’s a collective yawn from all” The nudist activist was a conservative? Conservative what? I don’t know much about the guy so perhaps you are right, time for some research on my part. Vivid vividbleau

I'm wondering if the increasing polarization is a symptom of our burgeoning populations., something we have never had to deal with before. Humanity spent much of its early years living in clan- or tribal- or village-sized social groups. It's what we're adapted to and where we feel most comfortable. It's where we lived close to the leadership and felt we could influence it. As populations have grown exponentially so have the social groups in which we find ourselves and, more significantly, so has the distance between the individual and society's governing bodies. One of the impulses which drove Brexit in the UK was a perception that Brussels was remote, probably corrupt and made up mostly of foreigners who were either indifferent or actively hostile to the British. I have the impression that a lot of Americans feel much the same about Washington. As I see it, there is a tension between those who foresee the need for some sort of world government as the best way to tackle the world's problems on a worldwide basis and those who instinctively feel excluded from the globalist project and prefer, as an alternative, to try and break society down again into more manageable "bite-sized" portions where they feel a greater sense of personal power and influence. Seversky

@491

And here it’s just crickets.

Why would you expect anything else? As Kairosfocus keeps reminding us, the US (and perhaps the whole Western world) is in a Cold Civil War: one side wants to build on the gains made in the 1950s and 1960s, the other side wants to roll them back. No room for consistency when everything is at risk! PyrrhoManiac1

And here it's just crickets. Alan Fox

@486

I remember outrage here over the peaceful protests outside the SCOTUS residences after RvW was overturned, but I haven’t seen any similar outrage here over the break-in and subsequent assault at Pelosi’s house. Indifference or hypocrisy?

Neither. It's the tribalism into which US politics has descended as a result of massive polarization: what they do is bad, and what we do is good. Consistency in moral principles is a minor casualty. A better analogy with David DePape (the Pelosi home intruder) would be James Hodgkinson, the Sanders supporter who shot Rep. Scalise in Alexandria a few years ago. The key difference is in the reporting and how the media shapes the narrative. Right-wing talk-show hosts were quick to pounce on Scalise's shooting as evidence that the Radical Left is a pack of homicidal maniacs who want to streets to run red with Republican blood. No liberal pundit would ever say the same about DePape. I also think it's crucial to notice that if a mentally unwell Democrat had invaded the home of Kevin McCarthy, critically injuring his partner, the entire country would turn on the Democrats and the Democrats would turn on themselves. In that scenario, it would be obvious that the Democrats would get pummeled in the midterms. But when a mentally unwell conservative attacks Pelosi's husband, it's a collective yawn from all. Even the NYTimes put the story below the fold in today's paper. PyrrhoManiac1

AF: Why not both?

Perhaps. But I wouldn’t rule out selective outrage or willful blindness. Sir Giles

Lucky the restrictions on carrying firearms prevented a worse outcome* (assuming Mr Pelosi makes a full recovery from his fractured skull and other injuries). *Yes, this is irony. Alan Fox

Indifference or hypocrisy?

Why not both? Alan Fox

I remember outrage here over the peaceful protests outside the SCOTUS residences after RvW was overturned, but I haven’t seen any similar outrage here over the break-in and subsequent assault at Pelosi’s house. Indifference or hypocrisy? Sir Giles

LCD at 482, The Leftist is perfect. Always looking for the less perfect so they can Accuse them. The Left is god. It will cleanse society of all bad things. It will rule forever. Until you find out they're Marxists and that you no longer own anything, just the Marxist state. relatd

Paxx at 483, Seriously? You missed the shrill fanatics? The WOMAN is to be Worshiped ! She is her own god ! She controls everything ! Even the life growing inside her ! It's OK to kill that life ! I choose life for both. relatd

As a former fetus, I oppose abortion Having said that, I'm pro choice: give the baby a choice Paxx

Vividbleau JVL I have mentioned this before, you do indeed whine a lot.

:)) Leftist culture. Insecurity. Hate. Always others are to be blamed. They are perfect. What can be said if they think that killing babies is a human right while every word they don't like it's a crime. Word = crime. Killing babies=human right. Man= woman and viceversa(it's enough to think that and become reality) ...and they want to agree with them ? :) What a joke! Lieutenant Commander Data

JVL I have mentioned this before, you do indeed whine a lot. Vividbleau: Yes let’s stick with two of his despised behaviors, your lying and slander. Vividbleau: What lie? The only lying going on here is by you JVL telling the truth is not over the top commentary. Vivid vividbleau

ET, vulgarity and over the top commentary has been documented. It is counterproductive and out of good order, kindly stop. LCD, please do not set up a broken window.Notice, the result. KF PS, JH has demonstrably spoken with disregard to truth and is speaking in defence of mass slaughter, rooted in thinking that was traced above from Darwin, Spencer and Galton et al through H G Wells [who warned] to one Schicklegruber. The toll is 1,4+ billions, mounting at a million per week, and the rhetoric pivots on dehumanising the unborn child. I responded to him above and that should be recognised. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: you have been here long enough to know that when I see abuse I will call it out Good. Just for reference then from this thread: ET: That isn’t the behavior I am talking about, dipshit. Why do you think that acting like an infant is a good look for you? LCD: Somebody has mental issues. ET: You are a clueless loser. Today’s reproductive system is NOT the intelligently designed reproductive system. Grow up. LCD: Early embryo is smarter and more conscious than you. Vividbleau: Yes let’s stick with two of his despised behaviors, your lying and slander. Vividbleau: What lie? The only lying going on here is by you. JHolo: So far in this thread I have been called a liar, a racist, a misogynist, a Nazi, a hypocrite, sick, and a misanthropist. All because I share the view of the majority of the citizens of the US, including a significant portion of Christians. Should I continue? I haven't even gone back beyond the early 400's in number of posts. JVL

JVL, you have been here long enough to know that when I see abuse I will call it out. I have not noticed outright abuse but notify ET that harsh words tend to polarise, though sometimes some are necessary when issues of truth are key, e.g. mass killing, slander, confession by projection, lying, agit prop. The other day I ran across stuff where members of the attack penumbra were trying to lash and deride me for saying the manifest and self declared about Saul Alinsky, author of that handbook of mischief, Rules for Radicals. Yes, he was a neo marxist, cultural marxist in the school coming from Frankfurt, Gramsci et al. Now, his disciples rule the roost and his techniques and related ones from a related Marxist school, critical theory, are turning public discussion utterly toxic. KF kairosfocus

JH at 468, If you are for permissive abortion you are for allowing babies to die. relatd

Paxx: Do you have a point to make? Or an agenda to push? If so, what?

I just thought it was a very interesting graph and I would like to discuss why the US seems to stand out. I was just hoping that KF or someone would open a new thread on that issue. JHolo

"Why do you have to be such a jerk when someone asks you honest and sincere questions?" JVL, You poor waif. Welcome to The Internet. We'll try to be nicer. ;) Andrew asauber

ET: Whenever it was. Doubtful Why is it difficult to determine? Not necessarily. It’s just the easiest way. Certainly behaviour can affect culture which affects lots of things that could affect development. That isn’t the behavior I am talking about, dipshit. Why do you think that acting like an infant is a good look for you? Why do you have to be such a jerk when someone asks you honest and sincere questions? If you want people to understand what you are saying and implying and thinking then why aren't you clearer? You have some idea or scheme or hypothesis worked out but you don't reveal it and get angry when people ask questions or make guesses. I really thought that maybe you were thinking that some of our morals and ethics seem so native and constant that perhaps they're programmed into us and that maybe that's how we have evolved (over the last couple of million years at least) because we're making choices about how we behave which could affect our development as a species. There's a logic to that thought. So I asked you about that and you just get abusive. Not that Kairosfocus or anyone else representing the site cares anymore how many times you slag people off or act rudely but I would think that at least you would care to appear to be thoughtful and insightful. JVL

I think JH should share some images of the array of abortion methods and their results so it can get on the same page as the thinking people here. Andrew asauber

Abortion is killing babies, JHolo. ET

JVL:

When was that? Before humans existed?

Whenever it was. Doubtful

Okay. So . . . is that how we’re programmed to evolve?

Not necessarily. It's just the easiest way.

Via built-in morals and ethics which guide our behaviour?

That isn't the behavior I am talking about, dipshit. Why do you think that acting like an infant is a good look for you? ET

ET: With the originally designed organisms. When was that? Before humans existed? Humans can evolve by changing our behavior. We can adapt by changing or behavior. Okay. So . . . is that how we're programmed to evolve? Via built-in morals and ethics which guide our behaviour? JVL

JHolo:I realize that this is off topic but it might be interesting to have a separate thread about health care in the US versus that in other countries. Especially given the fact that the US spends the most per capita on health care and has one of the lowest life expectancies of developed nations. Do you have a point to make? Or an agenda to push? If so, what? Paxx

LCD: 5 min ago you advertized for killing babies and now you talk about health care? Somebody has mental issues.

You must have a serious reading comprehension issue. Where exactly did I advertise for killing babies? JHolo

JHolo I realize that this is off topic but it might be interesting to have a separate thread about health care

5 min ago you advertized for killing babies and now you talk about health care? Somebody has mental issues. Lieutenant Commander Data

I realize that this is off topic but it might be interesting to have a separate thread about health care in the US versus that in other countries. Especially given the fact that the US spends the most per capita on health care and has one of the lowest life expectancies of developed nations. https://twitter.com/andy23tran/status/1547244767733506050?s=21&t=E2qiV0RublEZ5-ZxlGCJNA JHolo

JVL:

When did the intelligently designed reproductive system exist? Does that mean that intelligent design is no longer affecting human evolution? When did it stop?

With the originally designed organisms. No. It didn't. Humans can evolve by changing our behavior. We can adapt by changing or behavior. ET

Andrew at 463, Since the late 1960s, a campaign began to "normalize" sex outside of marriage, to "normalize" contraceptives, to "normalize" disordered sexual behavior. Why? One reason was to get others who were not doing this to join in. Total strangers came to my neighborhood, and neighborhoods around the U.S. and they promoted this along with illegal drug use. They wanted people to think 'sex for pleasure' was OK. Sex in marriage only? They didn't want that. So they want you and me to accept their ideas, including the ultimate form of birth control - abortion. "Abortion on Demand!" And they tell people no one dies in the process? What? There's no baby in there? That's crazy. relatd

It's amazing (but not surprising) that some are so devoted to such a barbaric practice as abortion is. Why? Why not be so devoted to planting flowers instead? or cleaning up trash? Andrew asauber

Seversky: Christians inveigh about the “Holocaust” of the millions of aborted unborn but are strangely silent about the billions of unborn that have lost in miscarriages due to a poorly-designed reproductive system. The blame for all those deaths can be laid fairly and squarely at the Designer’s door, although He appears to be totally unconcerned about it. Which raises the question of, if God couldn’t care about the deaths of the unborn, why are His followers? If there is a Creator, then I would imagine he knows what he's doing, and I'll let him do it. If there's no Creator, then it doesn't matter. And you can apply this to any of the undesirable things that happen on earth. Theodicy, which beyond the scope of the abortion question. I doubt you want to start that conversation. At any rate, a miscarriage is not intentionally performed by a human. An abortion is. If i'm sitting next to a man and he drops dead from a heart attack, it isn't my fault. If I stab him to death, it's my fault. That's the difference between miscarriage and abortion. Heart attacks and miscarriages are outside the purview of the legal system. Abortion and murder are not. One need not bring religious considerations in the abortion fray. It comes down to a matter of human rights, which I rarely see the radical pro-aborts acknowledge. "Abortion, safe, legal, and rare", is what I heard Hillary Clinton say back in the 90s. They don't say that any more. Abortion-as-mere-convenience no matter what stage of gestation is fully embraced these days. Some of us are shocked by this as a matter of humans rights and the evolving views of the young when it comes to these matters. Dangerous territory. Paxx

Seversky: By that rationale, the Court should be taking a closer look at the 13th Amendment. given that there was a longstanding tradition of slavery in the US. The 13th amendment explicitly outlawed slavery everywhere in the USA. There is no such explicit Constitutional right to an abortion. Moreover, statutory "black letter" law generally trumps judicial "common law" rulings in the USA. One could argue that there was a common law right to an abortion, particularly given the commonly held notion of "quickening" in the 1700s and prior, but common law is judicial case law, which can change over time as new evidence accumulates and other considerations come into play. In the early 1800s abortion began to be opposed by physicians due to new understanding of human embryonic development, which brought the notion of "quickening" into suspicion, which led to statuatory laws being enacted that overrode previous judicial "common law" rulings. Roe vs Wade essentially came down to common law and privacy issues with the SCOTUS at the time. The current SCOTUS disagreed and reversed, thus kicking it back to the states. This is how the legal system works in the USA. If you want the right to an abortion to be enshrined as a Constitutional right in the USA, then a Constitutional amendment will be required. (Individual states may pass their own state constitutional amendments. I imagine CA will probably do that eventually. Again, this is how it works in the USA.) Paxx

ET: Today’s reproductive system is NOT the intelligently designed reproductive system. When did the intelligently designed reproductive system exist? Does that mean that intelligent design is no longer affecting human evolution? When did it stop? JVL

Sewersky the billions of unborn that have lost in miscarriages due to a poorly-designed reproductive system.

Don't forget to mention about your poorly designed brain. :lol: Lieutenant Commander Data

Seversky at 451, You know what you sound like? The GUY DOWN THE STREET IS BAD !!! ALL people who live one block away from me are BAD !!! That's idiotic. The Rest is taken from the LATEST Leftist Action Bulletin. Just because you can find one Christian pastor who says bad things does not mean all Christian pastors are bad. Jesus did not advocate for the death penalty. So stop it. relatd

JH at 441, You appear to be here to help market disordered sexual behavior. That needs to be pointed out. And who the heck are you to accuse others of "puritanical religious views"? The correct word is beliefs and ordered human sexual behaviors. Guilt-free sexual activity outside of marriage is the goal here. That's all you're doing. It's wrong. We, as human beings, need appropriate guilt, an appropriate sense of shame and a desire to limit sexual activities to marriage, nowhere else. All you're saying is: "Hey man. If it feels good do it." Self-control and self-discipline are important things to teach your kids. relatd

seversky:

Christians inveigh about the “Holocaust” of the millions of aborted unborn but are strangely silent about the billions of unborn that have lost in miscarriages due to a poorly-designed reproductive system.

You are a clueless loser. Today's reproductive system is NOT the intelligently designed reproductive system. Grow up. ET

seversky:

Quite so, thereby creating a situation in which abortion may be perfectly legal in one state but a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment or even the death penalty in a neighboring state.

Only sick and pathetic people advocate for the ending of an innocent human's life. ET

PS, we could equally argue that the unborn child, even of a rape, is a living human creature and has an inherent right to life. Similarly, what if we were to argue that the Supreme Court had a 60+ year aberration as an arm of secularist social engineering, manned by radicals; the issue is the soundness of the constitutional point made by Alito. It is noticeable that by and large there is little on the actual merits being raised by objectors. As for various disorders of sexual conduct and of identity etc, those can only be soundly resolved once we understand and acknowledge first, built in, self evident, branch on which we sit law. Which, conspicuously your side tries to caricature and dismiss. That tells us, we are dealing with crooked yardstick thinking and it can only be resolved by exposing the crookedness of the yardsticks. KF PS, for convenience, I again put up the algebra on moral knowledge, which includes knowledge of justice, due balance of rights, freedoms, duties. If a claimed right would impose habitual lying on us, or enabling of manifest evil, or participation in it, then it cannot be a valid right. Where, my right implies your duty. Yes, justice is a major moral issue and so, contrary to some common assertions, law is inevitably inextricably intertwined with core moral questions tied to justice. Now, the algebra:

Objective moral truth is widely denied in our day, for many it isn't even a remotely plausible possibility. And yet, as we will shortly see, it is undeniably true. This marginalisation of moral knowledge, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity. Let a proposition be represented by x M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [--> truth claim] O = x is objective and generally knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [--> notice, generally knowable per adequate warrant, as opposed to widely acknowledged] It is claimed, cultural relativism thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1

[ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: "[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc -- c 430 BC on, hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made." This IMPLIES the Cultural Relativism Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. Of course, subjectivism then reduces the scale of "community" to one individual. He continues, "These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . " [--> door opened to nihilistic factionalism]]

However, the subject of S is M, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O, and is about M where it forbids O-status to any claim of type-M so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [--> reductio ad absurdum] ++++++++++ ~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*M = 1 [condensing not of not] where, M [moral truth claim] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] That is, there UNDENIABLY are objective moral truths; and a first, self-evident one is that ~[O*M] is false. The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important.

Your answer? __________ kairosfocus

Paxx/446

SCOTUS did not rule on the rights, nature or experience of the unborn. SCOTUS simply overturned a former SCOTUS ruling, removing the federal government from the abortion issue, kicking it back to the individual state legislatures and courts.

Quite so, thereby creating a situation in which abortion may be perfectly legal in one state but a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment or even the death penalty in a neighboring state. By that rationale, the Court should be taking a closer look at the 13th Amendment. given that there was a longstanding tradition of slavery in the US. Maybe that should be returned to the purview of the states so that there could again be slave-owning states and free states and the basis for another civil war. Seversky

Seversky, if a natural process miscarries, that is worlds different from willful slaughter of our living posterity in the womb. We know, atheists are desperate to resurrect the problem of evils but it failed 50 years ago once Plantinga's free will defence was on the table. Which is a general defence. Maybe, progres with medicine will reduce miscarriages, but that has nothing to do with our responsibility for 1.4 billion of our living posterity killed since the early 70s, and rising at another million per week. This is a civilisation sustainability issue. KF kairosfocus

Christians inveigh about the "Holocaust" of the millions of aborted unborn but are strangely silent about the billions of unborn that have lost in miscarriages due to a poorly-designed reproductive system. The blame for all those deaths can be laid fairly and squarely at the Designer's door, although He appears to be totally unconcerned about it. Which raises the question of, if God couldn't care about the deaths of the unborn, why are His followers? Nobody is advocating for ending an innocent human life for no good reason but there are "good" Christians who are advocating for mothers and medical staff involve in abortion to be thrown in prison or even, in the most extreme cases, prosecuted for murder in which the death penalty is an option. There are "good" Christians who advocate for no exceptions in the case of rape or incest so women and girls who become pregnant following those traumatic assaults will be forced - forced - by the state to carry those fetuses to term, regardless of the victim's wishes. There are cases of women who have died from medical complications in pregnancy because the doctors were prevented from aborting the pregnancy to save the mother's life by the ethical regulations imposed by "good" Christians There is that "good" Christian pastor in Texas who preached that homosexuality should be made a criminal offense carrying the death penalty, that gays should be rounded up and, if convicted, should be executed by being shot in the back of the head. Finally, there is the Supreme Court majority of "good" Catholic Christians who, having denied a woman's right to elective abortion, are now moving on to contraception, same-sex marriage, LGBTQ rights, possibly even mixed race marriage and restoring racial segregation. Why not? By Alito's absurd test there is no deep, historical tradition of mixed-race marriages in the US but there is a well-established tradition of racial segregation there. Come to think of it, there's no long history in the US of women having the right to vote or own property. Maybe SCOTUS will be taking a fresh look at those. Abort the Court! Seversky

JH is an abortion zealot. No chance of a reasonable conversation there. Andrew asauber

Only the pathetic and sick of mind advocate to end the life of an innocent human. JHolo advocates to end the life of an innocent human. ET

Paxx, correct, the Supreme Court identified and corrected extra-constitutional over-reach pivoting on emanations and penumbras as imagined. Alito et al, with fifty years of growing chaos, laid out why and for cause returned to status quo as at 1972. It is obvious that the radicals know that after fifty years, they will not win the public over in key areas to support continued mass slaughter of our living posterity. More subtly, they see repudiation of judicial activism that turned the court into a nine member monarchy ruling by decree on excuse of judicial decisions. KF kairosfocus

JHolo I have said their is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

What you say has no relevance for sane people. Sane people know what is the purpose of sexual organs . Probably you had /have homosexual experiences but hey who I am to tell you not to play with feces in your room but to advertize(what you do) is totally different problem.

JHolo: I still think that the early embryo is a mass of unfeeling no conscious cells. "

Early embryo is smarter and more conscious than you. Lieutenant Commander Data

JHolo: "I still think that the early embryo is a mass of unfeeling no conscious cells. But obviously the SCOTUS ... think[s] otherwise." SCOTUS did not rule on the rights, nature or experience of the unborn. SCOTUS simply overturned a former SCOTUS ruling, removing the federal government from the abortion issue, kicking it back to the individual state legislatures and courts. Paxx

“Let’s stick with one of your despised behaviours.” Yes let’s stick with two of his despised behaviors, your lying and slander. Vivid vividbleau

JH, personalisation and polarisation riding on dragging into needless and vulgar topics already answered; but from the abundance of the heart for good or ill the mouth speaks. Trollish conduct, consider this a warning from the thread owner. KF kairosfocus

KF, you appear to despise anything that I say. Let’s stick with one of your despised behaviours. Masturbation. https://amp.mindbodygreen.com/articles/yes-masturbating-is-good-for-you-17-feel-good-benefits--18581 JHolo

JH, subject switching. You know the intemperate and nihilistic accusation you tossed into the thread. KF kairosfocus

Let’s examine what is being discussed. I have said that there is nothing wrong with premarital sex. You have equated that with promiscuity and STDs. Not the same thing. I have said their is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Again, you have equated that with gay orgies and HIV. Not the same thing. I have said that there is nothing wrong with masturbation. You have equated that with porn addiction. Again not the same thing. I have said that there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage, or people who express themselves as transgendered. You have equated that with “disordered sexuality”. Yet accepting it has reduced suicide rates. Although I have never had a homosexual relationship, I don’t see anything wrong with it. I have had a handful of premarital sexual relationships. Each one monogamous at the time. I don’t regret any of them. Even though I have been happily married for almost 40 years, I still masturbate on occasion. And I don’t feel guilty about it. I defy you to explain why any of this is wrong. And try to do so without invoking your puritanical religious views. JHolo

JH, you know full well just what you are trying by this stunt. And no, this is not opinion, that went out the door when 200+ comments ago, your side ducked addressing Alito on points with a convincing refutation. That says, you have no sound answer on the merits. And just by slandering as liars you are demanding for what you favour the status of laws of the Medes and Persians that were blocked from amendment. Further, by playing at by "asking" questions, inquisitors sitting in the Senate would be given power to entrap and bias judges into pre made arbitrary decisions on pain of impeachment for allegedly lying to Congress. If you do not see the inherent, nihilistic power grab and injustice in that, I have fine Caribbean Beach Front property in Montana to sell you. So, we know that you are lying, as Vivid pointed out. Lying and projecting accusations of lying to slander others. Slander, in the cause of enabling the worst mass slaughter of the innocent in history. Please, think again. KF kairosfocus

KF: JH, confession by projection again; do you understand you are admitting to deceit and to enabling biasing of judges by inquisitions?.

Nope. I have no idea what the hell you are accusing me of. And neither does anyone else. All I know is that we have a difference of opinion. And you opt to demonize me rather than address the actual issues. I am fine with that, but it makes you look like a jerk. JHolo

JH, confession by projection again; do you understand you are admitting to deceit and to enabling biasing of judges by inquisitions?. Ever since the infamous blunders of the Persians [an ever present context and yes most famously in the Bible as lessons for all time], we have learned that laws and rulings must be amendable and replaceable. Yes, not arbitrarily but where cause is there, justice demands changes. Or else for the US the Dred Scott decision would forever obtain. But, you already know that, you are playing at dirty rhetorical, trollish stunts to taint the despised other with slanders. What is material was already highlighted in 219, the Roe and Casey decisions were ill founded constitutionally and as matters of justice. The penumbras, emanations and the like have failed, as Alito laid out in painstaking detail you and others would sweep away in eagerness to extend the blood guilt of mass slaughter of living posterity under false colours of rights etc. The decision returns the matter, per Const, to the states and their people. Obviously, you fear that as the people and their representatives are forced to grapple with this ugly, bloody business, they will stop or greatly restrict the slaughter. Instead of attending to this, you wish to distract, poison and polarise, a confession that you have no answer on the merits but are hell bent on mass slaughter. So, it is sad but unsurprising to see the sorts of dirty stunts in support of further shedding of innocent blood we are seeing. Please, think again. KF kairosfocus

VB: What lie? The only lying going on here is by you.

Well, coming from you, I will take it with a mine full of salt. JHolo

“I’m confused.” That’s stating the obvious. “It is OK to lie to the panel interviewing you for a position you don’t yet have?” What lie? The only lying going on here is by you. Vivid vividbleau

VB: Omission of what? They were not on the court, there was no case before them. Quit spreading lies.

I’m confused. It is OK to lie to the panel interviewing you for a position you don’t yet have? My atheist, Darwinist, materialist parents taught me otherwise. JHolo

“So, a lie of omission is not a lie.” Omission of what? They were not on the court, there was no case before them. Quit spreading lies. Vivid vividbleau

Jholo I assume that if you lived in the US you would politically align with the party of death so this whole Roe Wade thing is easily solvable. The party of death holds the super majority so just codify it. Why have they not done so? Vivid vividbleau

VB: Neither justice gave straightforward answers about ruling on Roe.

So, a lie of omission is not a lie. Good to know where your values “lie”. JHolo

“And, speaking of “speaking in disregard to truth”:” Pot, kettle , black. Your the one perpetrating lies. “However, as the New York Times noted, neither justice explicitly said that Roe was a settled law that they would uphold. Neither justice gave straightforward answers about ruling on Roe. Justice Kavanaugh declined to directly answer whether the decision was “correct law.” He said at one point that the case was “important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times.” Justice Gorsuch followed a similar tack. He refused to say how he would rule on Roe, noting that the decision was “a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court that had been reaffirmed.” https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/28/aoc-calls-for-impeachment-of-justices-gorsuch-kavanaugh-for-lying-under-oath/ https://www.breitbart.com/news/what-gop-nominated-justices-said-about-roe-to-senate-panel/ Vivid vividbleau

JH at 428, Only truth has value, not opinions. What can be shown to be true is true, opinions, not so much. I think you substitute opinions for beliefs in this case. relatd

Jh at 426, If someone lied then it should be dealt with. Back to the topic. A woman is not using "health care" when an abortion occurs. Abortion is not healthy for the baby. Only an ectopic pregnancy that threatens a mother's life is a consideration. relatd

Translation of KF@427: The first duty to truth is objective and inviolate unless the lie supports my personal opinion. JHolo

JH, projection. That they resort to this instead of actually refuting the Alito argument on points is telling. Suppose one were to hold the same about the three dissenters, it just goes nowhere. The precedents of courts are not absolute, and what holds the weight is balance on merits. If you can soundly argue that Alito et al ruled incorrectly rather than on merits, then that would be something. That this sort of destructive, accusatory stunt comes up instead is confession by projection to the despised other. KF PS, try the summary in 219 above https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/developing-the-us-supreme-court-reverses-roe-v-wade-is-it-cry-havoc/#comment-759305 kairosfocus

And, speaking of “speaking in disregard to truth”:

Democratic Reps Call on Senate to Declare That Supreme Court Justices Lied Under Oath in Confirmation Hearings

JHolo

Relatd, truth says of what is, that it is; and, of what is not, that it is not. {Ari, Met 1011b] Accurate description of reality, which immediately makes reliable access to truth -- warranted, credibly true belief -- vital. That also requires right reason, to have credible warrant. Those who have tried to deny objective [so, warranted] moral knowledge or for that matter knowledge in any distinct field, end up asserting a knowledge claim regarding the field, a negative one. They refute themselves. Having a sound body of knowledge confers legitimate confidence to act, decide, teach, correct error etc. Those who have instead swallowed crooked yardsticks on such topics, will resent correction, viewing it as oppressive, even the correction of a naturally straight and accurate plumb line. Indeed, it seems now many want to brand the US Supreme Court as sexist, racist and to be curbed by being put under the UN. The same UN of Zionism is racism and Israel is an apartheid state. All this, to continue a policy of mass killing of our living posterity. I hold this, a live illustration of the warping effect of blood guilt leading to cognitive dissonance and confession by projection to the despised other. It is particularly interesting that we are not seeing cogent answer to the Alito argument, no constitutionally sound warrant, back to the states. KF kairosfocus

JH at 422, How then shall we live? I can point to the Bible. Others just point to themselves. In your case, I think you should realize that the nature of truth can be known, and it is not derived from solely human sources. relatd

JH, there you go again. Meanwhile, you are implicitly appealing to my failure to fulfill duties to truth, right reason and warrant. The branch on which we all sit effect gets you again. It would be funny but untruth is the foundation of injustice, here the worst mass slaughter in history. KF PS, we both know, full well, the rhetorical impact of your statement as cited. kairosfocus

KF: JH, again, notice your attempt to deny knowable moral truth and to replace with opinions.

That humans have things that we call moral values is a truth. It can’t be denied that we all have deeply held values that we try to follow and that we hope others would follow. It is the source of these values where we differ. I believe they are the result of early teaching, reinforcement, feedback, reasoning and experience. The fact that most of us share many of the same values (eg, avoid violence, don’t steal, be polite, etc) simply means that we have all arrived at the same conclusion with regards to our desire to live in a social setting. But there is no evidence that these values are derived externally from the human condition.

Next, simply by putting the words together, “Homosexuality and premarital sex are no more harmful than going to church” — cf JH, Bechley thread, 963, July 10, 2022 at 7:20 am — implied precisely the association and comparison I pointed to.

Then, I dare say, you are not reading for context. The subject was the harm of homosexuality and premarital sex. The other commenter responded with “STDs”. Which is true. There is the risk of Infection with unprotected sexual activity. I simply pointed out that there was also the risk of infection by going to church. Both of which are simply factual statements. That you read more into it than was intended says more about you than it does about me. JHolo

Article headline from today's New York Times: "Is It an Embryo, a Fetus or an Unborn Child?" Let's see. My translation: [said with a Brooklyn accent] We got no idea what's goin' on in there. Could be anything. And some believe we're living in "modern" times. General request: Someone send the New York Times some ultrasounds. relatd

JH at 417, Sorry, the "everybody's doing it thinking" ignores standards. Standards of human sexual conduct. The "I'll get pleasure however I can" is barbaric and pagan. Human beings need to be civilized not, "Hey man, if it feels good do it" That is ALL you're promoting. I suggest you stop now. It's not civil or civilized. Back to the "imposing" crap? Again? It's like saying I can reach through this computer screen and actually talk to you instead of just typing on a keyboard. You sound just like the Hippies who had nothing but anger and confrontation when anyone questioned their lifestyle. STOP IT. JUST STOP IT. relatd

PPS, After Alcibiades and after defeat in the Peloponnesian war, Plato warns:

Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: "nature" (here, mechanical, blind necessity), "chance" (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all[--> notice the reduction to zero] in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, so too justice, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin"), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . this is actually an infamous credo of nihilism . . . also, it reeks of cynically manipulative lawless oligarchy . . . ]

and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

kairosfocus

JH, again, notice your attempt to deny knowable moral truth and to replace with opinions. Next, simply by putting the words together, "Homosexuality and premarital sex are no more harmful than going to church" -- cf JH, Bechley thread, 963, July 10, 2022 at 7:20 am -- implied precisely the association and comparison I pointed to. I note to you the chaos caused by the undermining of confidence in knowable moral truth, its growth due to evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers, and that this was noted on by Plato in The Laws Bk X 2360 years ago, it is nothing new. The real problem is not the list of popular sexual disordered conduct now moving on to attempts to destroy marriage and family or even recognition of our two complementary sexes through relativistic, nominalist redefinition into meaninglessness, but the underlying undermining of moral government starting with first duties/laws. Once that is addressed, we can begin to restore order and recognise that one of the onward effects, mass slaughter of our living posterity at will, is a horror that needs to be corrected. The anticivilisational, misanthropic consequences of the disorders of moral government, sadly, speak for themselves. KF PS, let us put back a little Algebra on the table, that we may understand that as with any other reasonably distinct domain of thought and action, it is undeniable that there are objective, warranted, knowable moral truths. Indeed, this is a first moral truth:

Objective moral truth is widely denied in our day, for many it isn't even a remotely plausible possibility. And yet, as we will shortly see, it is undeniably true. This marginalisation of moral knowledge, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity. Let a proposition be represented by x M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [--> truth claim] O = x is objective and generally knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [--> notice, generally knowable per adequate warrant, as opposed to widely acknowledged] It is claimed, cultural relativism thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1

[ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: "[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc -- c 430 BC on, hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made." This IMPLIES the Cultural Relativism Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. Of course, subjectivism then reduces the scale of "community" to one individual. He continues, "These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . " [--> door opened to nihilistic factionalism]]

However, the subject of S is M, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O, and is about M where it forbids O-status to any claim of type-M so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [--> reductio ad absurdum] ++++++++++ ~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*M = 1 [condensing not of not] where, M [moral truth claim] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] That is, there UNDENIABLY are objective moral truths; and a first, self-evident one is that ~[O*M] is false. The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important.

So, it is time to fix the root problem, and then correct the chaos and harm that flow from that damage. Ruse, Wilson, Provine et al, and behind you Schicklegruber, Wells, Darwin, Galton -- yes, eugenics lurks here -- Spencer and co, we are looking at you. kairosfocus

KF: Your loaded comparison (and by now habitual pushing of sexual disordered conduct) would be sadly amusing, if it were not instead inadvertently revealing of the underlying moral bankruptcy of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies

You claim that premarital sex, homosexuality, transgendered and masturbation are sexual disordered conduct. I understand that this is your opinion but the majority of people don’t share your opinion. Imposing your opinion on others is no more valid than me imposing mine on others.

There is a reason why you compared promiscuity or fornication, sexual perversities and church going.

STRAWMAN ALERT! STRAWMAN ALERT! I did not compare promiscuity, fornication and sexual perversion with going to church. I was simply pointing out that you can be infected by disease through sexual activity and through social activities like going to church. And that there are means of preventing both without abstaining from sexual activity or church attendance. JHolo

JH: Your loaded comparison (and by now habitual pushing of sexual disordered conduct) would be sadly amusing, if it were not instead inadvertently revealing of the underlying moral bankruptcy of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies. There is a reason why you compared promiscuity or fornication, sexual perversities and church going. Likewise, there is a reason why you have tried to suggest that there is no deep rooted issue with killing our living posterity in the womb at will, and more. That reason needs to be pointed out and challenged, as it goes to the heart of the ongoing moral collapse and rise of lawlessness and nihilism in our civilisation. It is thus first relevant to expose some underlying evolutionary materialistic thinking by highlighting Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson in their notorious 1991 essay, “The Evolution of Ethics”:

The time has come to take seriously the fact

[--> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc. and as the ideology of evolutionary materialistic scientism, which undergirds the perception of "fact" is an imposed, question-begging, self-refuting necessarily false assertion, not a fact]

that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again [--> why, isn't that a disguised "OUGHT," the very thing being trashed?] especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ [--> this speculation improperly dressed up as fact directly affects ethics, with implications for the first duties of reason] The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place. [--> Yes, they are utterly unaware of how such undermines the credibility of reason thus their own rationality, by imposing grand delusion and undermining the moral government that drives how responsible rationality works] [Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991.]

Will Hawthorne, in reply to such ideological impositions, is deservedly withering, echoing the concerns Plato raised in The Laws, Bk X, concerns that reflect lessons hard-bought with blood and tears:

Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this [nihilistic, absurd] consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [a material] 'is'.

So, the sorts of arguments you have raised are of a piece, all reflect the moral bankruptcy of dominant ideologies in our civilisation. A moral bankruptcy epitomised by the loud objections to anything that might stem the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity that just in the USA has reached 63+ millions. You objected above to nazi comparisons, the reality is that is the path we are embarking on. Basically, globally, where the toll is 1.4+ billion and rising at about a million per week. For shame! As well, they yet again reflect the branch on which we all sit first duties and first built in law that once we restore willingness to recognise, offers a path to sound reformation. Yes, I speak of our first duties,

1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.

Perhaps, it is time to think again and change our ways. KF kairosfocus

"All because I share the view of the majority of the citizens of the US" JH, You and we know that's not the reason (majority or not is irrelevant). You are going to have to face up to the issue someday. Might as well be today. Andrew asauber

JH at 411, Straight from the Leftist handbook. I'm a victim. I've been called names! I don't believe the Media. They lie. They are promoting Leftist/Liberal causes. If those polls are true, it is because Leftist liars have lied convincingly and brainwashed the people. Get with reality. Do you think no one except politicians believe the truth? If you do then I will tell you the truth. There are still many people in the United States who reject lies. Who do not blindly follow politicians or the liars in the Media. Romans 1:24 "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves," Romans 1 :25 "because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." relatd

PS, when your speech and enabled behaviour are misanthropic, in all prudence we can and should take due note. There can be no valid right to take the life of another at will, and from conception on the unborn child is not like a fingernail to be pared at will, s/he is a fresh, distinct individual. It is sad that this has to be pointed out, we here see crooked yardstick thinking that dehumanises and would kill at will the targetted other. So, no, it is not how dare those awful Christians call me names, it is time for you to face the awful reality of 1.4 billion of our living posterity slaughtered under colour of law over the past 50 or so years, currently growing at another million per week. kairosfocus

JH, misattributed. I note, the dehumanisation game escalates without natural control; abortion is a kind of euthanasia, infanticide follows, general euthanasis comes after; all reflect the rise of fundamental amorality due to want of a frame that can acknowledge moral knowledge, leading to nihilism. Misanthropy. KF kairosfocus

So far in this thread I have been called a liar, a racist, a misogynist, a Nazi, a hypocrite, sick, and a misanthropist. All because I share the view of the majority of the citizens of the US, including a significant portion of Christians. It seems like the misanthropy label is a case of the accuser applying a label to what he sees in the mirror. JHolo

"Who is advocating to end the life of an innocent human?" JH, You are, Sherlock. Andrew asauber

KF: The people who advocate to end the life of an innocent human are sick and should be imprisoned

And they are. I don’t see what your point is. Who is advocating to end the life of an innocent human? JHolo

The people who advocate to end the life of an innocent human are sick and should be imprisoned. ET

What JHolo is doing is using the opportunity he was given to develop to deny the opportunity to develop to others. Hypocrite of the grandest proportion. Andrew asauber

JH, you are dealing with a human life. Respect the child, do not dehumanise him or her. That, is misanthropy. KF kairosfocus

Or, why don’t we isolate every woman between 12 and 50, only allowing them to be in contact with a male when they are ovulating? A male of our choosing. And then isolate them again until they give birth? Isolating them from any condition that could possibly be harmful to a developing embryo. After all, there are a long list of behaviours and nutrition that we know may increase the risk to an embryo. But why stop there? We also know about numerous parental behaviours and conditions that are sub-optimal for babies and child development. Maybe women should not be entrusted with raising their own children. The risk is too high. JHolo

Relatd: The evidence is that you went through that phase.

Yup. Absolutely. And the evidence is also that if I was aborted in the first 20 weeks, I would not have perceived pain and wouldn’t have been conscious of the event. In short, I would never have known that I existed. And, as such, never would have cared. If you want to look at it from the other side, my daughter has had an ectopic pregnancy and three miscarriages in the last five years. Nobody wanted these, but where is the uproar from the pro-lifers? Where is the push from them to invest billions to prevent miscarriages? Given that up to 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriages, exceeding the percentage that end in abortion, where are the anti-miscarriage protesters? If the pro-lifers are serious that the fertilized egg has the same right to life as everyone, why is there not a push to intervene immediately after conception? Take pregnant women into custody, ensure that they get the best nutrition and prevent them from any behaviours that may put the fetus at risk? JHolo

JH at 402, The evidence is that you went through that phase. It's part of normal human development. A normal pregnancy ends in birth. relatd

KFJH, it is a commonplace that targets for destruction are dehumanised, as the history of the past 100+ years shows in all too telling detail. Reconsider your clump of cells reference. KF

I will rethink it when you can demonstrate that the early fetus can perceive pain and is conscious. Until then, I follow the evidence. JHolo

VB: So now it’s a child not just a clump of cells?

No, I still think that the early embryo is a mass of unfeeling no conscious cells. But obviously the SCOTUS and you think otherwise. In that case, the pregnant woman should either be allowed to use the HOV lane or be charged for not securing her “child” in a government approved car seat.

Jholo is not only a racist, and a misogynist but would have been a Nazi if he lived in Germany under Hitlers regime., just saying

You forgot narcissist, nihilist and tax cheat. JHolo

“Or, perhaps, she will be charged for not having a child secured in an approved child seat.” So now it’s a child not just a clump of cells? Vivid vividbleau

KF “JH, it is a commonplace that targets for destruction are dehumanised, as the history of the past 100+ years shows in all too telling detail. Reconsider your clump of cells reference. KF” Jholo is not only a racist, and a misogynist but would have been a Nazi if he lived in Germany under Hitlers regime., just saying. Vivid vividbleau

It was only a matter of time.

Pregnant woman given HOV ticket argues fetus is passenger, post-Roe

Or, perhaps, she will be charged for not having a child secured in an approved child seat. JHolo

JH, it is a commonplace that targets for destruction are dehumanised, as the history of the past 100+ years shows in all too telling detail. Reconsider your clump of cells reference. KF kairosfocus

JH, The little human you say has no rights is everyone. Every human progresses though the little stage. So in the interest of fairness, shouldn't everyone get the same opportunity to grow up? Andrew asauber

Jh at 394, That is so wrong. It is not scientific. Doctors have operated on babies in the womb. Why? So they can be aborted or to repair defects in a human being? Why do you deny the obvious? Here's a baby at 15 weeks. Is it just "a mass of cells"? http://www.pregnancysymptomsweekbyweek.org/15_Weeks_Pregnant_Pregnancy_Symptoms Here's the full story about what President Biden did. As usual, the details are important. https://apnews.com/article/abortion-biden-us-supreme-court-government-and-politics-0e6496122de46f1039cbb2b5145d6d60 relatd

KF: JH, further legal action is sure to follow. Meanwhile the policy we are seeing since 1973 has led to 63 million killed, mounting at a long term average of 25,000 per week. KF

But it ultimately comes down to whether the rights of an unfeeling non-conscious mass of cells is greater than that of a feeling, conscious human. The difference of opinion ultimately comes down to a religious opinion. JHolo

JH, further legal action is sure to follow. Meanwhile the policy we are seeing since 1973 has led to 63 million killed, mounting at a long term average of 25,000 per week. KF kairosfocus

It was only a matter of time.

President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Friday to protect access to abortion as part of his administration's response to the Supreme Court's ruling last month overturning the constitutional right to the procedure.

JHolo

Marketing and public relations, the art of lying? kairosfocus

Who introduced the term "pro-choice" for abortion? Should be used the term "pro-death" because that is the truth . Pro-death people . (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdDilL6Ik_I) Lieutenant Commander Data

JH at 388, I don't know if you believe in an actual morality. 1. Segregation. I see. And who stopped this exactly? 2. Women getting the vote. I'm all for it. 3. Your attempt to say 'the second a man hitting his wife was illegal, all men stopped.' I have no reason to believe that. None. 4. How did anyone know a person was homosexual in order to jail him? A few actual examples please. You can change names if you like, but a few actual examples would be helpful. 5. So before 'the legal' was applied to interracial marriage, interracial marriage never happened? There is evidence to the contrary. For example, in the Old West a white man might marry a Native American. Again, I don't know if you have morality. Speaking generally, certain groups have been engaged in social engineering. Manipulating people and general mischief. I believe that the general welfare must be upheld. In the 1960s, the government of the United States promoted our "Judeo-Christian Heritage." At Christmas, beautiful Editorials were written in newspapers about the birth of Christ. The Pope would appear on the cover of Life magazine. A person who I will not name was recently convicted and jailed for being involved in slavery for the purpose of sexual abuse but the cover-up term 'sex trafficking' is being used. I believe in specific words. relatd

Relatd: The erosion of a great many moral things was caused by individuals and groups going to judges and finding one, just one that would agree with them.

I agree. That is how segregation was eventually banned. That is how women eventually got the vote. That is how a husband hitting his wife was made illegal. That is how jailing people simply because they were homosexual was stopped. That is how interracial marriage was eventually legalized. All of those previously “moral” acts were changed because of small vocal groups finding judges that agreed with them. JHolo

SA at 386, The erosion of a great many moral things was caused by individuals and groups going to judges and finding one, just one that would agree with them. For example, starting in 1957, they were making the kind of "progress" they wanted with pornography. "raw power" is a bit vague. In the case of one Supreme Court Justice, they claim to have a lot of signatures in an attempt to get of him removed. We'll see. relatd

Relatd @385 - agreed. The Left has attacked the concept of truth for a long time now. Everything is relative, and with Derrida even truth itself is an illusion. So, their approach is just "I want it now" - whatever it is. But they can't use reason and truth to convince, since they've destroyed the value of those concepts. So, they have to use lies and just raw power. Lying about whether a child is being killed, and raw power to just get rid of all the SC Justices they don't like. Silver Asiatic

SA at 382, Lying must be the most common things Leftists do. How else can distorted and abnormal things end up becoming legal? The current Supreme Court realizes that there is no "right" to a permissive abortion in the Constitution so Leftists can't say that the Supreme Court was right - just, throw the current Justices out. relatd

JH at 375, I see you're disappointed that there's no Atheist majority. relatd

Would we regard the words of a contract like we are seeing being proposed? The US Constitution is comparable, and it has a specific mechanism for amendment, applied some thirty times so we know it works when enough of a cross section want such. kairosfocus

JHolo is clueless. No one is rewriting the US Constitution.

JHolo said previously in this thread:

I find it sad, even dangerous, that people view the founders’ words as sacred and above reproach. ... In my mind, a healthy society is one that constantly questions it’s constitution and laws ...

So, he rightly saw the overturning of Roe V Wade as a respect for the constitution. But he didn't like that so he says that the constitution itself should be questioned and therefore rewritten. I then point out that anyone with enough force could therefore change the constitution - since there would be no respect for the original document. JH responds by saying that "like the Christian majority on the Supreme Court" are rewriting the Constitution - therefore questioning it and not holding the founders words sacred. Doing exactly what JH recommended previously. KF

JH, Lying — you readily know better

I hope he does. Silver Asiatic

JHolo is clueless. No one is rewriting the US Constitution. ET

seversky:

Darwinism. materialism and atheism are about the nature of what is, not about how we ought to behave towards one another.

Darwinism. materialism and atheism are total nonsense. Not one of them offers a scientific explanation for our existence. ET

PS, Sev and JH, to stand up for life [as many women do] is not to hate women; that is brazen slander. Nor is it bigotry or an empty suspicious "religious" pose; logic of being is not religion, nor is reckoning that we can discern built in first law pivoting on truth, respect for neighbour and justice. The projections to the despised other resorted to above are little more than confession by projection. kairosfocus

Sev, it is evident that your reasoning on roots of reality is little better than that on the mass slaughter of the unborn. We do not get a world from utter non being as true nothing has no creative powers. This also rules out circular retro causation; the not yet is not and cannot cause itself etc. As was shown, a transfinite causal-temporal thermodynamic succession of finite stages [years for convenience], poses an infeasible supertask, so we credibly know the past of our world and any quasi physical antecedent q-foam etc was finite and bounded. That is, our world and such antecedents if any are with beginning, are contingent per logic of being. We thus find a bill of requisites for a necessary being world root capable of causing such a world. Further to which, as our world contains creatures that are morally governed, such a bill includes inherent goodness and utter wisdom, to found morality. God as understood through ethical theism is a serious candidate necessary being and world root; such either is, or is impossible of being even as a square circle is. Of course, not one atheist or agnostic has yet provided a cogent argument as to why God is impossible of being, after centuries of effort. So the no evidence selectively hyperskeptical pose fails. KF kairosfocus

PPPS, I challenge you, Sev and JH, to cogently answer the US DoI without falling into absurdities:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind [--> they were consciously universal in their appeal] requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15; note, law as "the highest reason," per Cicero on received consensus], that all [--> all is not a select few JH] men are created equal [--> note, equality of humanity, thus of common first duties, rights, freedoms where due balance is the civil peace of justice], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [--> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

kairosfocus

Sev & JH, again, you have set up and knocked over a strawman while evading core issues, both on who is killed deliberately in an abortion, a living human being; and the imaginary construction of the founders and framers of the USA as providing scripture or the like. The former is a familiar ugly tactic, dehumanising one's intended victim. The latter is little more than an evasion of the substance of a highly effective, successful and historic argument that pivots on built in law. Here, recognition of inherent rights bound up in our nature [JH, what part of all men [= humans] are created equal [--> thus have a common, morally governed nature] and are endowed with unalienable rights is it that you think you can twist so brazenly?], which carry with them corresponding duties that begin with the right to life. It is obvious that a rhetorical trick involved is evasion of exposure of the absurdities of denying self evident truth. So, you attack the founders and those who take the argument seriously, setting up and knocking over strawmen. Shame on you. KF PS, JH, Lying -- you readily know better -- about accurate pointing out by Justice Alito and the majority that there is no valid constitutional basis for Roe [emanations and penumbras don't count] and that the Bill of Rights reserves to the states the decisions on what is not expressly devolved to the Federal state. You are attempting a turnabout projection, a characteristic move of ruthless wrongdoers. PPS, There is a definite procedure for Constitutional Amendment. Turning the Supreme Court into a nine member life appointment panel ruling by decree is a highly dangerous usurpation of that process and lies at the root of Roe. 63 millions have paid with their lives, but of course they are dehumanised. The misanthropic trend is all too plain. kairosfocus

SA: So, when it comes to re-writing the American constitution, an Islamic majority in the USA can quite easily get rid of the supposed separation of church and state.

You mean, like the Christian majority on the Supreme Court are now doing? JHolo

Relatd/367

Deflecting. “Your God…” Do you believe in God Seversky?

I used to believe in the Christina God but no longer. There was no epiphany, I just slowly came to the realization that there was no compelling evidence that such a being is actually there. I think that there are still profound mysteries about the nature of this Universe, how it came to be, where the laws by which it is ordered and all the other information came from. I think there is still a lot still to learn and that could include some sort of intelligence but I have no idea what. Seversky

Ba77 at 371, Thanks. Those reminders need to keep coming. Like sawing off the branch they are sitting on on a tree. relatd

JHolo/364

Sev: The more I see, the more I see we have to expose and root out misogyny and bigotry especially when promoted under the guise of religious belief

You beat me to responding with the blatantly obvious. ?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Seversky

Once again, Seversky is shaking his morally indignant fist at God with his feet planted firmly in mid-air.

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - C.S. Lewis

bornagain77

Seversky at 369, "Darwinism. materialism and atheism are about the nature of what is, not about how we ought to behave towards one another." How about the trafficking of persons or so-called sex trafficking? That's modern-day slavery, but those who would like to be in charge can't call it that. Abusing people as forced labor or for sex is abuse, but it's covered up under the fake word "trafficking." Again, the correct word is slavery. relatd

Silver Asiatic/351

Seversky refers us to a case from 39 years ago in a Catholic hospital in Ireland.

So it was from 39 years ago. It's still a salutary warning about what a crude, blanket ban on abortion could mean for real people.

The Catholic Church knows quite a lot about providing medical assistance (often free of charge) and healing for people throughout the world. The history of Catholic healthcare is extensive.

That's good. It goes some way towards making up for the clergy's abuse of children, the boarding schools for indigenous children in North America and the Magdalene Laundries scandal in Ireland.

Pagan religions did not believe in care for the sick.

People care for the suck and the old in their families or clans or tribes. They don't need a faith to tell them that they should.

Darwinism and materialist-atheism also can provide no rationale for the kind of sacrifices needed to care for sick patients.

Darwinism. materialism and atheism are about the nature of what is, not about how we ought to behave towards one another. Seversky

Of those religions JH mentioned, I'm especially interested in Islam.

The world’s Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, according to new population projections by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades.

So, Islam will be moving closer to about 30% of the world's population. Atheism will be about 2% So, when it comes to re-writing the American constitution, an Islamic majority in the USA can quite easily get rid of the supposed separation of church and state. They can create an ideal situation for what they believe to be the best and right society - with Islamic values enshrined as law. This has happened recently in Iraq as an Islamic state has been established and Christians and other non-Muslims have been persecuted. That's the normal procedure.

“In 10 years we will all be Muslims because of our stupidity,” declared Italian Monsignor Carlo Liberati recently. In an interview with Catholic journal La Fede Quotidiana, the archbishop emeritus of Pompeii lamented Western Europe’s transition into secularism and what may ultimately cause a transition back out of it: the influx of massive numbers of Muslim migrants into the West and these immigrants’ robust birthrates. This trend was also noted by late Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, who said in 2006, “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

The stupidity that Msgr. Liberati references here (he may not agree) is believing one can have a unified nation based on atheistic or secularist values (which are non-values). This creates a vacuum, and wherever there is that kind of cultural weakness and decay (as we have in America) a stronger, united force will come in and take over. Because there is no strength or unity of purpose to stop it. In America, secularism has left fragmentation, disunity and polarization. People do not have common values that they can defend together, as Americans. This leaves the field open for a stronger, united, purposeful force to take over. Islam is a very good candidate for that. Silver Asiatic

Seversky at 357, Deflecting. "Your God..." Do you believe in God Seversky? relatd

Relatd/350

You are being lied to. Excerpt from today’s Associated Press: “Extremist politicians are on a crusade to force Texans into pregnancy and childbirth against their will, no matter how devastating the consequences,” said Julia Kaye of the ACLU. Who FORCED the women to have sex?

Texas law SB8 makes no exception for incest or rape. The unwilling victims of such offenses will be forced by the state to carry those unwanted pregnancies to term no matter how devastating the consequences. The law also provides for private individuals who have no direct involvement or standing to profit from such cases. And the contemptible people who concocted this stratagem are congratulating themselves on their guile. That is no lie. That is the shameful truth. Seversky

KF: JH & Seversky, shame on you.

I don’t know about you Sev, but this made me laugh. I should thank KF for making me laugh and lowering my blood pressure. JHolo

Sev: The more I see, the more I see we have to expose and root out misogyny and bigotry especially when promoted under the guise of religious belief.

You beat me to responding with the blatantly obvious. ? JHolo

Sev: The DoI and US Constitution are amongst the greatest documents ever written by men but they are not Gospel or holy texts.. Men wrote them and men can amend them.

I agree that they are historically important and influential documents, but to say that they are amongst the greatest is to give them value they don’t deserve. They talk about freedom, but only for a few. It can be argued that the constitution extended slavery for several decades.

That’s true and religions can have their say in that process. But they do not get the final say.

I agree. But can you honestly see KF, Jerry, SA, and fellow travellers allowing fair hearing to muslims, sheiks, Buddhist’s, Hindu, Wiccans and satanists? All recognized religions. JHolo

Kairosfocus/347

The more I see, the more I see we have to expose and root out misanthropy and anticivilisational attitudes. KF

The more I see, the more I see we have to expose and root out misogyny and bigotry especially when promoted under the guise of religious belief. Seversky

JH & Seversky, shame on you. You know full well that the US DoI is one of the most successful natural law arguments ever made, the charter of modern constitutional, representative, lawful democracy. You pretend that you can dismiss the point that there is a built in moral government in us that is thus universal and transtemporal as it is part of our nature, ...

Yes, the desire for a just, stable and fair society that guarantees the safety and legitimate interests of all its members is part of human nature. But that is the only way it can be considered "natural". Seversky

Relatd/345

The drafters didn’t know airplanes would be built? So what?

So you are not going to find much of use concerning the design and construction of aircraft in the Constitution? Seversky

JHolo/344

Sev@339, I find it sad, even dangerous, that people view the founders’ words as sacred and above reproach. They were a group of people with the same flaws, ambitions, pettiness and agendas as any other group of people.

I agree. The Founders were amongst the wisest, best-educated most intelligent men of the generation but for all that they were still just men. The DoI and US Constitution are amongst the greatest documents ever written by men but they are not Gospel or holy texts.. Men wrote them and men can amend them.

In my mind, a healthy society is one that constantly questions it’s constitution and laws, one that constantly questions it’s moral values. Any law or moral value that can continuously stand up to scrutiny is one to defend. Any that can’t should be modified.

That's true and religions can have their say in that process. But they do not get the final say. Seversky

Seversky

why should you worry about abortion?

People die of natural causes every day - so why should we worry about murder? Silver Asiatic

Relatd/343

WHAT is being aborted? A blob of tissue or a human being?

A blob of tissue that might ultimately develop into an adult human being. And uncounted billions of such blobs have been flushed away in miscarriages over the course of human history. Your God created that system but He doesn't seem to be worried in the slightest about that super-Holocaust, so why should you worry about abortion? Seversky

How Dave Chappelle Predicted the Collapse of Roe v. Wade Lieutenant Commander Data

"Women's Health Benefits"? Killing the unborn is a "health benefit"? Abortion is Health Care? And a human being does not die in the process? More lies. relatd

why are they resorting to lying to support mass killing at will of our living posterity?

They're obsessed with guilt and fear so they have to lie about everything. Then they get tired of the lies and start saying that infanticide is good. Then it will become that only the select people should live and we have to weed out the unwanted and unfit. Those are the genocidal ideas of Darwin and his apostle Margaret Sanger just coming back for us again. Silver Asiatic

Here is a listing (not complete) of pro-abortion companies and corporations offering benefits to cover abortion. This is a good resource to know what to avoid. Some of these places offer employees cash benefits to abort their child. So the woman faces a choice: Kill my child or keep it? Well - my company will pay me $4000 to kill it, so ... ? As some commentators have pointed out, it's cheaper to pay women employees to kill their own children than to support family life. That is, it's cheaper in the short term. It's vastly more expensive for our society, for the corporate market and for flourishing of human life. But companies can only look at what benefits them now and very little to the effects in a long-term future. Companies with Extended Women’s Health Benefits Yale School of Management https://mk114283.wixsite.com/website Silver Asiatic

Relatd, why are they resorting to lying to support mass killing at will of our living posterity? Do they see what that implies? KF kairosfocus

Seversky refers us to a case from 39 years ago in a Catholic hospital in Ireland.

The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of health care services in the world. It has around 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, and 5,500 hospitals, with 65 percent of them located in developing countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care

The Catholic Church knows quite a lot about providing medical assistance (often free of charge) and healing for people throughout the world. The history of Catholic healthcare is extensive. Pagan religions did not believe in care for the sick. Darwinism and materialist-atheism also can provide no rationale for the kind of sacrifices needed to care for sick patients. Silver Asiatic

To all reading, You are being lied to. Excerpt from today's Associated Press: “Extremist politicians are on a crusade to force Texans into pregnancy and childbirth against their will, no matter how devastating the consequences,” said Julia Kaye of the ACLU. Who FORCED the women to have sex? relatd

As I said any further debate is a waste of time because none of it is informed. Just rants.

I don’t want to be overly critical of the drafters of the DoI, the constitution or the bill of rights

Some of the greatest documents in the history of mankind. You do realize that nearly everything you say is nonsense. There are ways to amend the constitution and it has been several times. Last time I looked, the human being has not changed in 10,000 years or more. Technology has changed but not humans. These decisions are about how best to approach something that is consistent with laws human have set up to live by. The ironic thing is that these decisions are about the correct way to make important decisions not obviating any specific thing. They are aimed at doing things correctly based on what is current law. The reversals they are making are the reversals of arbitrary decisions by others that were actually unlawful. These are not arguments over right vs wrong but how to do something lawfully based on current laws. It is more about conflicting laws or someone arbitrarily changing the law to suit their personal preferences. jerry

PS, it is high time for us to refer again to:

We may readily identify at least seven branch- on- which- we- all- sit (so, inescapable, pervasive), readily knowable first principle . . .

first duties of reason and first universally binding laws written into our rational, responsible nature and forming morally driven governing principles of reason, high and low alike:

"Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to and pervasive in our reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,

1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.

Likewise, we observe again, that the objector to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.

Start from there. kairosfocus

JH & Seversky, shame on you. You know full well that the US DoI is one of the most successful natural law arguments ever made, the charter of modern constitutional, representative, lawful democracy. You pretend that you can dismiss the point that there is a built in moral government in us that is thus universal and transtemporal as it is part of our nature, at the same time as you snidely suggest that the reasoning is defective and should be discarded . . . of course, without actually addressing one thing on the merits. FYI, clocks tell time, not truth, and not foundational law that protects core rights starting with the one you seem to deride, life. At least, you have put yourself on record and those who look on can see for themselves just what lurks under the slogans and manipulations of Roe v Wade. The more I see, the more I see we have to expose and root out misanthropy and anticivilisational attitudes. KF kairosfocus

Seversky at 338, What about the Atheist Cabal here? Pushing for the killing of the unborn. Doctors have operated on fetuses in the womb. Were they human beings or a blob of tissue? relatd

JH at 337, The drafters didn't know airplanes would be built? So what? If you eat too much you get fat. If you drink too much you become an alcoholic. The problem here is people who want to legalize sex, sex, and more sex and keep that ultimate form of birth control - abortion - legal. relatd

Sev@339, I find it sad, even dangerous, that people view the founders’ words as sacred and above reproach. They were a group of people with the same flaws, ambitions, pettiness and agendas as any other group of people. In my mind, a healthy society is one that constantly questions it’s constitution and laws, one that constantly questions it’s moral values. Any law or moral value that can continuously stand up to scrutiny is one to defend. Any that can’t should be modified. JHolo

Seversky at 341, Trying to create sympathy? You, yes you, were an embryo. A normal, healthy woman will get pregnant if she has sex often enough or If she forgot to take The Pill. Answer the question: WHAT is being aborted? A blob of tissue or a human being? relatd

Vb at 316, What do you know about the Hitler Youth? I had relatives who were in Germany during the war. They were not German and they were not Nazis. The Hitler Youth were defending their homes, their land, from foreign invaders. relatd

As for the anti-abortionists here who favor a blanket ban, I refer you to the case of Sheila Hodgers

Sheila Hodgers (1956/57[fn 1] – 19 March 1983) was an Irish woman from Dundalk, County Louth, who died of multiple cancers two days after giving birth to her third child.[2] She was denied treatments for her cancer while pregnant because the Catholic ethos of the hospital did not wish to harm the foetus. Her case was publicised in an article in The Irish Times the week before a September 1983 referendum which enshrined the right to life of the foetus in the Constitution of Ireland.[3][4] The case has been recounted in subsequent pro-choice commentary on abortion in the Republic of Ireland.[2][5][6][7] In August 1981, Hodgers detected a breast lump and was referred to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, then run by the Medical Missionaries of Mary, a Catholic order of nuns.[3] Some time after a lumpectomy there, her husband Brendan was told by the surgeon that a second tumour had been found which would be fatal if a mastectomy wasn't performed.[3] Even with the operation, there was a strong chance of secondary tumours appearing.[3] The operation was carried out and considered a success.[3] Hodgers was prescribed a course of anti-cancer drugs and advised not to use the contraceptive pill as this could cause her cancer to return.[2] According to journalist Padraig Yeates, Brendan Hodgers claimed a consultant told him that "as Sheila had a clean bill of health, (pregnancy) shouldn't be a problem".[3] The consultant himself denied this.[3] According to Yeates, every medical expert he spoke to said that following a mastectomy, it was standard advice to tell a woman to wait at least two years before becoming pregnant.[3] One year after the operation, Sheila Hodgers became pregnant.[2] Since the anti-cancer drugs she was taking could harm the foetus, she was stopped from taking them.[2] Hodgers began experiencing severe back pains and could hardly stand.[2] Her husband urged the hospital to induce her pregnancy or perform a Caesarian section but they refused as it would damage the foetus.[2][3] They also refused painkillers.[2][3] The hospital had to abide by an alleged "Bishop's Contract", a code of ethics drawn up with the Catholic Church.[2] During her time at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Hodgers was attended to by at least seven doctors.[8] Her husband said the only doctor there he trusted was Michael Neary.[1] According to Brendan Hodgers: "I went to see Sheila one night and she was in absolute agony. She was literally screaming at this stage. I could hear her from the front door of the hospital and she was in a ward on the fourth floor. I saw the sister and she produced a doctor who said nothing that made any sense."[2][3] Sheila Hodgers was subsequently moved to the maternity unit and given painkillers.[2][3] According to Brendan, he at this point asked if an abortion could be performed but was given no answer.[2][3] The couple again asked if an induction or Caesarian could be performed, and were again told the baby would not survive.[2] On 17 March 1983, Hodgers gave premature birth in extreme agony to a baby girl, Gemma, who immediately died.[1] Hodgers died two days later from cancer in her neck, spine, legs, liver and ribs.[2][3]

She was denied her anti-cancer drugs and even painkillers?? So, a husband is without his wife and children are without their mother? For what? As Charles Darwin wrote an another context, although it applies equally here, this is a damnable doctrine. Seversky

Seversky at 338, Oooh, oooh, oooh. The Supreme Court did something I don't like. Those dirty rats. I was at a party where some friends of mine brought their 4 year old daughter. She was dancing, as best she could, and enjoying herself. Then her mother told her it was time to go. She ignored her. Then her mother told her again. She ran up to her mom, struck her, and said, "I hate you!" relatd

JHolo/337

I don’t want to be overly critical of the drafters of the DoI, the constitution or the bill of rights, but there is no way they could envision the technological changes that have occurred in the last 250 years. They knew nothing about electricity, internal combustion engine, the telephone, modern travel, nuclear power, automatic weapons, the internet, medical advances, satellites, computers, etc. yet people keep trying to interpret their words in modern context.

It seems to me there are parallels between constitutional originalism and Biblical literalism. In both cases, one school of thought is trying to claim greater legitimacy for its position by arguing that they are somehow closer to divining the original intent of the authors than their opponents. Since in neither case are the authors around to be consulted this is simply an unwarranted claim to an authority they cannot support. They are interpreting just as much as their opponents. Does anyone seriously believe that the drafters of the Second Amendment would have left it as is if they had known of the slaughter being caused by semi-automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition in the hands of often disturbed individuals who are able to buy them over the counter with little or no restrictions? Seversky

It is beginning to look like we have a Catholic cabal on the Supreme Court pursuing a conservative Catholic agenda., first abortion, next contraception, same-sex marriage, LGBTQ rights. They could even go after women's rights more generally since, by Alito's ridiculous test, a woman's right to vote or own property are not deeply rooted in this nation's history. It is time to scrap the Supreme Court as presently constituted. The authority and credibility of any court ultimately rest on the trust of those within its jurisdiction that it is an impartial arbiter of legal disputes. Where it is seen to pursue a partisan agenda it forfeits that trust and it is time for a change. Seversky

I don’t want to be overly critical of the drafters of the DoI, the constitution or the bill of rights, but there is no way they could envision the technological changes that have occurred in the last 250 years. They knew nothing about electricity, internal combustion engine, the telephone, modern travel, nuclear power, automatic weapons, the internet, medical advances, satellites, computers, etc. yet people keep trying to interpret their words in modern context. JHolo

This is a dead thread and I am not trying to revive it but here is the best explanation I have seen for the recent court decisions for those that are interested. The two positions are delineated clearly. Hopefully no debate will resume. It’s a waste of time. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/07/a_scotus_guide_for_the_perplexed.html Above article refers to this article which is clearer. https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-7-1-there-are-two-fundamentally-irreconcilable-constitutional-visions jerry

JH at 334, A lesson on How to Lie to the People. 1960 - The FDA approves the birth control pill. Most women do not want or need it. It's available by prescription only. 1967 - Time magazine runs a cover story about The Pill. At the top of the page: "Contraception: Freedom from Fear" Fear of what? Babies. Someone decided that women in the U.S. needed to have fewer kids to avoid the Fake fear of having too many. In the 1950s, the average number of kids in my neighborhood, and for miles around, was 2 not 10. So, did The Pill end the problem of too many births? No, of course not. 1968 - The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws is founded. "The original NARAL program had six parts: 1. Assist in the formation in all states of direct political action groups dedicated to the purpose of NARAL; 2. Serve as a clearinghouse for activities related to NARAL's purpose; 3. Create new materials for mass distribution which tell the repeal story dramatically and succinctly; 4. Train field workers to organize and stimulate legislative action; 5. Suggest direct action projects; 6. Raise funds for the above activities." And they lied to the American people and the press: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55401/an-ex-abortionist-speaks 1973 - The U.S. Supreme Court, citing "penumbras" and "emanations" from the Constitution, legalizes permissive abortion. They were wrong. Their ruling has been overturned. You would have people believe that without the intervention of TOTAL STRANGERS in our schools that teen pregnancies led to more abortions in a part of the country where, as has been stated, it was virtually impossible to get an abortion even after 1973? So there were teen pregnancies there, but apparently, very few abortions. relatd

Relatd: That old propaganda line.

Facts are not propaganda. They are facts. JHolo

JH at 332, That old propaganda line. NO ONE is capable of CONTROLLING their sexual desires so TOTAL STRANGERS (TM) are required to get between you and your parents who, or so we were told at the time, were too embarrassed to teach their kids about sex. But TOTAL STRANGERS got into our schools. Carried big signs that read: We're Not Embarrassed BY ANYTHING! And took over control of our kids regarding sex education. No - a thousand times NO. Or, just give everybody birth control and abortion stops? NO. relatd

CD: Abortion was already virtually impossible to get in the Bible Belt.

And, thanks to many of these states restricting access to comprehensive sex education at an early age and access to some effective means of birth control, these states also tend to have the highest rates of teen pregnancies. JHolo

CD at 327, How about the consequences of Not having sex? What is really stupid is the bad-wrong emphasis. On WOMEN. On women "OF COLOR." And then there's the PROPAGANDA: The Government is FORCING me to have a Baby! Really? Who FORCED you to have sex? Your boyfriend? Do you think women who are "incapable of parenting" are even less capable now that the law changed? Seriously, do people who think abortion is a good thing think any of this through? And -- Let's Blame Christians for everything! Let's not forget those living in the Liberal Belt who are going to be inconvenienced by the change. They will have to pay more to travel farther. "They are only interested in exercising power and control based on their twisted “Christian” sense of morality." Are you willing to walk up to a Christian and say that? And do you realize that you can say the following: "I, and only I, want POWER and CONTROL."? Because when the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, certain people were happy about the decsion. Today, the Supreme Court is saying there's no right in The Constitution to an abortion, so we're sending that issue to the States. Or are you going to argue with a decision based on evidence? relatd

"the so-called pro-life advocates are always curiously absent–they have no regard for the women and children involved." Yes, CD is living in the Culture of Death fantasyland. Andrew asauber

CD said:

Having acted as a CASA advocate for three decades I’ve seen over and over the consequences of unwanted pregnancies and women (many times merely teens) incapable of parenting, having kids. I also know that within this context, the so-called pro-life advocates are always curiously absent–they have no regard for the women and children involved. They are only interested in exercising power and control based on their twisted “Christian” sense of morality. The rest is someone else’s problem.

This is so untrue it's laughable. There are countless supportive organizations, both Christian and secular, around the country dedicated to helping people that find themselves in these situations. They offer financial support, job assistance, free medical services, counseling, instructive parenting courses, often free products such as diapers and clothes, protective services for both the mother and the children, and also adoption alternatives. William J Murray

CD, the real issue is what is above and antecedent to enacted law, as Alexy has pointed out. It is clear that the activist rulings under colour of constitutional law over some fifty years in the US, have been in violation of what is built in, much less the responsible limits of the federal government and separation of powers. As to the continual projective slanders that pro life people do not care about children in deprived circumstance, that falls of its own weight on the most basic fair review. it is little more than a toxic distractor from the worst mass killing in history, 63 million in the USA and 1.4 billion globally. KF PS, Do I need to note that in general many children are a surprise and perhaps unwanted at the first, but come to be loved while in the womb and to be taken care of. Life is valuable, precious and the first right. I type this sitting across from the urns for my mother and brother, next to a photograph of my father who they will shortly join in the family crypt. kairosfocus

KF/325 Although moot given Dobbs, the issue in Casey was fetal viability as the demarcation point for elective abortion. The constitutional issue was the woman's sole right to make that decision, not the state, not the church. No weird ontological or moral analysis, e.g., "the ghostly shadow of recapitulationism." That the fetus was "alive" and a potential human being was not in dispute. The right to an abortion had already been established and, up until last Friday, that was the law. Now the law has changed. Members of the "pro-life" movement should take their "victory" with a modicum of humility because, for the most part, nothing has really changed. Abortion was already virtually impossible to get in the Bible Belt. Unfortunately, however, the disparate impact of abortion unavailability will get worse, especially among women of color or those of limited means. There will likely be significant increases in child abandonment, abuse and neglect. Having acted as a CASA advocate for three decades I've seen over and over the consequences of unwanted pregnancies and women (many times merely teens) incapable of parenting, having kids. I also know that within this context, the so-called pro-life advocates are always curiously absent--they have no regard for the women and children involved. They are only interested in exercising power and control based on their twisted "Christian" sense of morality. The rest is someone else’s problem. chuckdarwin

IF you thought the overturning of RvW was seismic, the upcoming ruling on WV v EPA might dismantle most of the power of the Federal government over the lives of citizens and business. William J Murray

FH. kindly note the spectrum of ranking, with northern europeans at one end, then Australians and apes at the other. This is precisely what we find in Haeckel, with his distorted drawings and in it is precisely the dehumanisation antecedent to not only the genocide Darwin so coolly predicted but also the frame in which africans would be dehumanised. As Orlando Patterson put it, slavery is social death. I highlight the parallel to dehumanisation of the unborn child and the ghostly shadow of recapitulationism which would trace the early stages of development to lowly forms of animals. Oh it's not conscious has horrific antecedents. KF kairosfocus

F/N: We are at a moment where we need to reconsider law and government, leading to needed reforms that restore soundness. The Germans, in a sense, are ahead of the anglophone world, having had to process the disastrous chapter from 1933 to 1945. It is in that context that Alexy goes on:

The question is this: Which concept oi‘ law is correct or adequate? An answer to the question turns on the relation of three elements to one another—authoritative issuance, social efficacy, and correctness of content. Altogether differ- ent concepts of law emerge according to how the relative significance of these elements is assessed. Attaching no signifi- cance whatsoever to authoritative issuance and social efficacy. focusing exclusively on correctness of content, one arrives at a concept of law purely re?ective of natural law or the law of reason. One arrives at a purely positivistic concept of law by ruling out correctness of content altogether and staking every- thing on authoritative issuance and for social efficacy. Between these extremes. many intermediate forms are pos- sible. The tripartite division indicates that positivism has two de?ning elements. A positivist must exclude the element of correctness of content. but then can de?ne in many different ways the relation between the elements of authoritative issu- ance and social efficacy [p. 13] . . . . If the positivistic separation thesis were certainly correct. analysis of the con- cept of law could be completely con?ned to the questions of what the best interpretation is of the elements of efficacy and issuance and how the relation between the two elements is best understood. The Federal Constitutional Court decisions sketched above, however, show that the separation thesis can at least be regarded as less than obvious. So the question becomes whether a positivistic concept of law as such is adequate in the ?rst place, and that depends on whether it is the separation thesis or the connection thesis that is correct [p. 20] . . . .

Later, we find the argument from injustice more precisely stated:

Probably the best-known version of the argument from injust- ice applied to individual norms stems from Gustav Radbruch. whose famous formula reads: >>The con?ict between justice and legal certainty may well be resolved in this way: The positive law. secured by legislation and power. takes precedence even when its content is unjust and inexpedient, unless the conflict between statute and justice reaches such an intolerable degree that the statute, as ‘lawless law‘, must yield to justice">> This formula is the basis for the decision on citizenship set out above [28]

In short, there is a lot of room for imperfections, errors, compromises, but there is a core that transcends civil issuance and once something under colour of law trespasses beyond such bounds, it becomes lawlessness. As we go forward, let us ponder. KF kairosfocus

FH, it has everything to do with indifference to mass murder and so to other moral hazards of Darwinism. We see there somewhat of a charter for social darwinism. There is a reason for H G Wells' warning in the opening passage of War of the Worlds. Hitler made Wells into a prophet. Enslavement and other means of subjugation are connected, as the Nazis showed; we too often forget their mass enslavement and use of forced labour. KF kairosfocus

This is said without even a by your leave as to how to avert it, it is said in support of why fossils are unlikely.

Granted the choice of language looks odd to us now, but that passage has nothing to do with slavery. And the prediction that "anthropomorphous apes" would be driven extinct by human proliferation seems accurate when you look at population levels and habitat loss for gorillas, chimps and orangutans. Fred Hickson

Related Also the use of language like “birthing persons” “chest feeders” and the manipulation of preferred pronouns. Vivid vividbleau

Related https://www.theblaze.com/news/disney-baymax-transgender-menstrual-products This is how it’s done Vivid vividbleau

VB: Oh I dunno maybe the one you posted on ,seems like a hundred times, in another OP?

Sorry. But you must be confusing me with someone else. JHolo

“I do not understand you. Who has whose children?” The educational system. Companies like Disney. You get them young and indoctrinate them. Hitler once said something like” you may not like my ideology but it doesn’t matter I have your children”Do not underestimate the power of indoctrination. Indeed when the Allie’s invaded Germany the most rabid defenders were the Hitler youth who got the full Monty of indoctrination. Vivid vividbleau

Vivid at 315, I do not understand you. Who has whose children? relatd

JH at 296, It seems you prefer to ignore facts you don't like. You will defend "women" but not men or unborn human beings. Your worldview prevents you from seeing the scientific facts. I sincerely hope that, at some point, you are persuaded that protecting human life from death is the first consideration. relatd

KF “This is what we have to address and reverse. KF” Correct this is a battle of worldviews and unfortunately our side is losing badly because they have our children. Andrew Breitbart said it well “politics is downstream of culture” The question is what is culture downstream from? It is downstream from worldview, that’s the elephant in the room. Vivid vividbleau

22 JHolo April 17, 2022 at 8:12 am Just to remind people that the repercussions of the trucker protest are still ongoing. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/patrick-king-bail-review-april-14-2022-1.6419581

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/truckers-to-government-we-are-not-your-lab-rats-any-more/#comment-751914 Silver Asiatic

“What trucker strike are you referring to? I was not aware that there was one.” Oh I dunno maybe the one you posted on ,seems like a hundred times, in another OP? Vivid vividbleau

“Again, was anyone forced to take the vaccine? As far as I know, their choice to be vaccinated or not was never removed from them. “ You are right they were not dragged into a room and forcibly injected they probably just had to do it if they wanted to keep their job. Trudeau’s platform. https://liberal.ca/our-platform/mandatory-vaccination/ Vivid vividbleau

VB: Where do you live because when the trucker strike was going on I thought you said you lived in or near Ottawa.

I live in Australia. I was born and raised in Canada but I left over 30 years ago. What trucker strike are you referring to? I was not aware that there was one. JHolo

VB: “Canadian Government Requires COVID-19 Vaccines for Public Servants…”

Again, was anyone forced to take the vaccine? As far as I know, their choice to be vaccinated or not was never removed from them. Unlike the choice of a woman to have an abortion in many states was last Friday. JHolo

“I don’t know. I don’t live in Canada” Where do you live because when the trucker strike was going on I thought you said you lived in or near Ottawa. Vivid vividbleau

JH, that you have rights is an unproved assertion . . . see the can of worms you are opening up? But, at least we can see on naked public display the corrosion of conscience caused by mass blood guilt. This is what we have to address and reverse. KF kairosfocus

“Sorry, I read through this and I didn’t see where anyone was forced to take the vaccine.” “Canadian Government Requires COVID-19 Vaccines for Public Servants…” Vivid vividbleau

FH, perhaps you do not recognise the moral hazard acknowledgement in Descent, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,16 will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

This is said without even a by your leave as to how to avert it, it is said in support of why fossils are unlikely. KF kairosfocus

Jholo “This is ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense. How many Einstein’s and Steph Curry’s weren’t born because the wrong sperm cell reached the egg first” Wrong sperm cell? We’re they killed in the womb? “because the man used a condom, “ Was it killed in the womb? “because the man pulled out before ejaculation,” Was anything killed in the womb? “because the woman said no, because the man and woman never met?” Same question. Vivid vividbleau

VB: “Correct me if I am wrong.” Be happy to.

Sorry, I read through this and I didn’t see where anyone was forced to take the vaccine. JHolo

KF: JH, we both know that half the time the unborn child in the womb is not even the same sex as his mother.

Agreed.

We both know that, having human parents, the unborn child is human;

Agreed.

which absent propagandistic distortions immediately leads to recognition of rights starting with life. KF

Ignoring the hyperbolic BS, this is nothing more than an unproven assertion based on your personal opinion. Rights are what we as a society say they are. Hypothetically, if the right to life begins at conception, why don’t we isolate women at the moment of conception to ensure that none of their behaviours can have a negative impact on the fetus? Make them wear red robes and white hats. If a pregnant woman continues to participate in activities that could harm a fetus, why don’t we charge them with negligent homicide when their actions result in the unintentional death of the fetus? When a woman opts for an abortion, why don’t we charge them with premeditated murder, and force them to suffer the consequences which, in many states, is the death penalty? If a woman takes the pill or uses an IUD, and is sexually active, why don’t we charge them with conspiracy to commit murder? We don’t do any of this because we all know, if even subconsciously, that a fetus does not have the same right to life as a living, breathing, feeling, thinking human being does. JHolo

Jholo “Correct me if I am wrong.” Be happy to. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/global-hr/pages/coronavirus-canada-vaccines-public-servants.aspx Vivid vividbleau

VB: How many Steph Curry’s have been aborted? How many Einsteins have been aborted?

How many Hitler’s, Stalins, Maos have been aborted? This is ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense. How many Einstein’s and Steph Curry’s weren’t born because the wrong sperm cell reached the egg first, because the man used a condom, because the man pulled out before ejaculation, because the woman said no, because the man and woman never met? JHolo

JH, we both know that half the time the unborn child in the womb is not even the same sex as his mother. We both know that, having human parents, the unborn child is human; which absent propagandistic distortions immediately leads to recognition of rights starting with life. KF kairosfocus

VB: Correct me if I am wrong but did not Canada require all Federal employees ,that included I would presume many women , to take the vaccine? If so what happened to “my body my choice”.

I don’t know. I don’t live in Canada. But my understanding is that nobody in Canada is required to take the vaccine. Correct me if I am wrong.

“This ruling will help the economy in states where abortion is legal. “ This is so sick but then again we all know killing babies is big business.

I was just stating obvious facts.

Keep on serving your corporate masters.

I am my own corporate master so I have no idea what you are implying. JHolo

Relatd: If you were a fertilized egg, an embryo and fetus, would it be OK to kill you in the womb?

Sure. How would I ever know? JHolo

KF: JH, there is and can be no right to kill another at will and you know it.

You don’t know what I know. JHolo

Andrew: I read babies can start feeling pain at 8-15 weeks.

Responding to stimuli and being able to perceive pain are not the same thing. JHolo

For all of Jholo’s self righteous preening over people of color the abortion rate by black women is 5 times that of white women. Millions upon millions of unborn blacks and an incalculably loss of the potential gifts they could have brought to the world. Some of you may know the name Steph Curry one of the the NBA’s all time greats. His mother was actually at the clinic and changed her mind. How many Steph Curry’s have been aborted? How many Einsteins have been aborted? Vivid vividbleau

It seems to me that African slaves were also once considered not to be “human” either, but a prehuman vestige of evolution, an idea later promoted by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book, The Descent of Man.

Nonsense. There's nothing in The Descent of Man that supports slavery. It is mainly about the evolutionary idea of sexual selection. There's plenty to indicate Darwin was abolitionist in his thinking. Fred Hickson

“I grasp the fact that a feeling, thinking person’s rights to what happens with her body…” Correct me if I am wrong but did not Canada require all Federal employees ,that included I would presume many women , to take the vaccine? If so what happened to “my body my choice”. “This ruling will help the economy in states where abortion is legal. “ This is so sick but then again we all know killing babies is big business. Keep on serving your corporate masters. Vivid vividbleau

For those who think a pre-born baby is not allowed to live because it has not been born, there is fetal surgery. So no, the surgeons involved are not operating on a space alien but a human being who is still in the womb. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/fetal-surgery/about/pac-20384571 https://thecatholicspirit.com/featured/fetal-surgery-photo-still-making-an-impact/ relatd

JH at 285, If you were a fertilized egg, an embryo and fetus, would it be OK to kill you in the womb? What is growing in there? Something non-human? And "The Woman" who is part of the current Marxist Class Warfare against men. Where is the man in all this? He has no say? Is it because he is the enemy? That thing to be avoided except for sex? You have no valid argument. Here's an article about fetal pain: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7350116/ Have you ever seen an ultrasound where they can tell the sex of the baby? relatd

JH, there is and can be no right to kill another at will and you know it. The rights of a half a generation have been horrifically violated, but we can and should stop this now. KF kairosfocus

It seems to me that African slaves were also once considered not to be "human" either, but a prehuman vestige of evolution, an idea later promoted by Charles Darwin in his 1871 book, The Descent of Man. -Q Querius

I read babies can start feeling pain at 8-15 weeks. Andrew asauber

Andrew: Which fetuses can’t perceive pain or think?

Those in the first 22-25 weeks of pregnancy. JHolo

"a fetus that can’t perceive pain or think." JH, Which fetuses can't perceive pain or think? It sounds like you are trying to diminish the humanity of the preborn child. You can't. Every single human being is a grown preborn child. You are a grown preborn child with murderous delusions of grandeur. Andrew asauber

Andrew: So you agree with this. I feel sorry for you. You don’t seem to grasp the issue with it, though.

I grasp the fact that a feeling, thinking person’s rights to what happens with her body outweigh the rights of a fetus that can’t perceive pain or think. JHolo

"a whole bunch of future residents and tourists will be killed." JH, So you agree with this. I feel sorry for you. You don't seem to grasp the issue with it, though. Andrew asauber

Andrew: I don’t know, a whole bunch of future residents and tourists will be killed.

You aren’t one of those who are naive enough to believe that making abortions illegal will actually reduce the number of abortions, are you? In 1967 there were 30% more illegal abortions than the number of legal abortions in 2019. And the population in 1967 was 30% lower than current numbers. But the one consequence will be an increase in maternal death and serious health consequences due to unsafe abortions. JHolo

"But an industry that restores the rights of half the population is certainly worth celebrating." JH, The Culture of Death celebrates it. Not everyone celebrates violent death. Andrew asauber

KF: JH, an industry of mass killing. Is that something to celebrate or promote or enable? KF

But an industry that restores the rights of half the population is certainly worth celebrating. JHolo

"This ruling will help the economy in states where abortion is legal." JH, I don't know, a whole bunch of future residents and tourists will be killed. Andrew asauber

JH, an industry of mass killing. Is that something to celebrate or promote or enable? KF kairosfocus

This ruling will help the economy in states where abortion is legal. And in Canada as well. It will create a travel for abortion industry. Discount travel. Discount hotels near abortion clinics. Discount Uber to get to and from the clinics. New clinics set up close to state borders where abortion is banned. Increased jobs in states where it remains legal. Increased advertising. JHolo

F/N: Alexy continues, tellingly:

Duly enacted lawlessness that is obviously in violation of the constituting basic principles of the law does not become law in virtue of having been applied and obeyed. 11 This is a classic non-positivistic argument. An authoritatively issued norm, socially efficacious from the time of issuance. is denied validity or—the decision is ambiguous here—legal character because it violates suprastatutory law. [p. 7]

That is, there is law before civil issuance, which could only reside in our nature, and as such is the built in law of our nature, expressing canons of justice [which requires truth and mutuality]. Such law would be coeval with our nature, and is therefore universal. yes, successful natural law reasoning expresses law of universal jurisdiction, law that cannot be amended or abrogated by civil code. In this context, we need to reconsider the Roe ruling, and whether it has robbed 63 million victims of their rights. Inasmuch as Dobbs puts the task in the hands of the states, these considerations now need to move to the front burner. Where, too, if the German Constitutional Court is to be believed, legal positivism was long since outdated 54 years ago. If so, why, then is it so dominant in anglophone jurisdictions today? KF kairosfocus

F/N: I think it is vital to continue to address law and government and particularly the needed accountability of law before truth, neighbour and justice. Accordingly, an example from the modern history of Germany:

a decision of I968 on citizenship, concerns the problem of statutory injustice. Section 2 of the Eleventh Ordinance (hereafter ‘Ordinance 11‘), 25 November 1941, issued pursuant to the Statute on Reich Citizenship of l5 September 1935,“ stripped emigrant Jews of German citi- zenship on grounds of race [Jews were dehumanised and demonised on excuse of race] . . . . The Court argues as follows: >>Law and justice are not left to the discretion of the lawmaker. The idea that a ‘constitutional framer can arrange everything as he pleases would mean reverting to a mental posture of value- free statutory positivism that has long since been obsolete in legal science and practice. Precisely the period of the National Socialist regime in Germany has taught that lawlessness [Unrecht] can issue even from the 1awmaker.‘8 Therefore. the Federal Constitutional Court has affirmed the possibility of revoking the legal validity of National Socialist ‘legal’ provisions when they con?ict with fundamental principles of justice so evidently that the judge who elected to apply them or to acknowledge their legal consequences would be administering lawlessness [Unrecht] rather than law.'9>> [The Argument from Injustice a reply to Legal Positivism, Robert Alexy, NY: OUP 2004, trans from German.]

In short, there is a built in law that the state including legislatures and courts or monarchs are bound to recognise, which prevents lawless decrees under colour of law. And, no this is not a rhetorical excuse to trot out Godwin, this is a matter of a crucial counter example from history bought with blood and tears. Ignoring the first law led to unspeakable horrors, The lawyer in question was deported from Holland in 1942 and vanished. Doubtless, to a grim fate at the hands of the lawless operating under colour of law, form but not true substance. This is a general principle and it applies to the case in view that has led to even wider and more comprehensive slaughter, KF kairosfocus

PS, the crucial issue is that the decision forces a public discussion overseen by the ghosts of 1,4 billion victims globally. A discussion that those who found Roe oh so convenient clearly do not want. After 49 years, that is a sign that at some level they know they do not have the weight on the merits, as the above shows. Given that willful mass slaughter is what is on the table, that should give pause. kairosfocus

JVL, technically is a wrong term, it is crucial. The failure of Athens discredited democracies as prone to abrupt tyrannical and foolish decision making by incompetent manipulators of the mob, as the parable of the ship of state describes with the history of the Peoloponnesian war and story of Alcibiades to back it. Pure democracy is unworkable. A constitutional, lawful republic or latterly monarchy [Cf Windsor] with democratic character involving separation of powers, priority on rights and regular accountability has proved feasible once various cultural buttresses are there, tracing to our civilisation's core history. What we are witnessing is the unravelling of that framework as our legacy is increasingly forgotten and twisted into solely a tale of oppression so that Western Civilisation and its inheritance from Jerusalem, Athens and Rome are seen as what is wrong with the world. Unfortunately, the would be new leaders lack the background, just as Plato warned in his parable. No, that parable should not be a largely forgotten "arcane" or "obscure" reference, it should be one of the key stories of our civilisation, taught in many ways. Indeed, it is so important that our word government, via Latin, comes from a key character, Kubernetes, steersman of the ship. Cybernetics comes more directly from the Greek. Ac 27 should also be taught, as a real world microcosm that is in fact also a foreshadowing of the course of our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

Q, not a legislature, a collective monarchy ruling by decree as appointments are for life, there is no regular accountability to the ordinary voter. Historically, many monarchs were elected to life terms by some body or other, the Holy Roman Emperor is a classic in point. KF kairosfocus

Thanks for posting the summary of the Supreme Court decision, Kairosfocus. It was well written and very illuminating!

The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.

I can see how Roe v. Wade made the court into a quasi-legislative branch rather than forcing Congress to debate, negotiate, and write concise laws as representatives of their constituents as they're tasked to do by the people. This assumes, of course, that people would rather be ruled by consensus based on principles rather than by arbitrary force based on whim and money. Unfortunately, I've read quotes by politicians who demand the Supreme Court establish its legitimacy by agreeing with them and forcing meanings into the Constitution that would create a pig's breakfast out of various rights, allowing them to be interpreted arbitrarily by those in power. For example, we've seen how institutions such as universities redefine the First Amendment to mean whatever they want on a case-by-case basis. This works only to destroy rights, making them subject to the whims of whoever gets in power. Being ruled by political whims might be comfortable for a while . . . until someone gets in power that they disagree with. But then it's too late. -Q Querius

To all reading: Is the following true? I did not start life as a fertilized egg. I was never an embryo or fetus. relatd

JHolo I’m glad my floors are clean because after reading this I was rolling on the floor laughing my ass off

Always before elections leftist zombies are programmed to hate otherwise they can't be used for political means. Last events like George Floyd,blm,covid and Roe vs Wade are fellow traveler pretexts promoted by the same elite. The "fight" between politicians (republicans , democrats, independents )it's an illussion, they are all actors . Lieutenant Commander Data

This entire discussion is a joke. It's a pathetic joke that people are actually advocating for the intentional killing of innocent humans. I can't believe the utter stupidity of people like you for doing such a thing. ET

ET: I would think that having sex with another person means that your individual privacy is not an issue.

I’m glad my floors are clean because after reading this I was rolling on the floor laughing my ass off at the utter stupidity of this comment. I can only hope, for your sake, that you were joking. JHolo

JVL

I suggest you spend more time supporting candidates who agree with you and making sure like minded citizens vote

It was through that process that Roe v Wade was overturned.

The US is a democracy which means you can’t always get what you want and if you want to live there you have to accept that.

I hope the pro abortion side will learn to accept that. Silver Asiatic

Watching leftists heads explode because of the overturning of Roe vs Wade has made this week very entertaining. Apparently the musician Pink has demanded all those in favour of the Supreme Court's decision to stop listening to her music. DONE! LOL. KRock

Thank you, JVL. The connection between a right to privacy and abortions is made up out of thin air. I would think that having sex with another person means that your individual privacy is not an issue. ET

JVL “But they know they won’t get enough support for that.” Exactly. Vivid vividbleau

AaronS1978: I encourage it if you’re going to have sex take the necessary precautions and I can’t emphasize condoms enough because diseases don’t care about personal rights and they never have but you know what condoms prevent both Something else we agree on! JVL

Vividbleau: This is heartbreaking, my sincere condolences. Thank you. It's something I would not wish on anyone ever. It tears you apart, for a long time. As to your comment about a democratic form of govt the US is not a pure democracy it is a Constitutional Republic, there is a difference. Yes, of course. Technically there are actually very few, if any, pure democracies. But it still means, sometimes, having to live with decisions supported by the majority which you might not agree with. Correct me if I am wrong however can all this be remedied by codifying a Federal law as it relates to the abortion issue? Some seem to think so which is why an amendment has been proposed as a possible strategy by the pro-choice supporters. But they know they won't get enough support for that. JVL

JVL “Given that the US Supreme Court has handed down a controversial decision and given that you know that a lot of US citizens disagree with your views and given that you think a democratic form of government is preferred then IF you were a US citizen (which you are not) would you be willing to sit down with those you disagree with and attempt to find a compromise?” The SC’s job is to uphold the constitution not make law. For to long politicians have shirked their responsibility they are the makers of law. Correct me if I am wrong however can all this be remedied by codifying a Federal law as it relates to the abortion issue? As to your comment about a democratic form of govt the US is not a pure democracy it is a Constitutional Republic, there is a difference. Vivid vividbleau

Kairosfocus: the controversial and plainly ill founded decision was in 1973. This restores status quo ante and puts the matter in hands of the states and their voters. Meanwhile, 63 million are dead. The recent decision may not reduce abortions at all since it merely allows states to ban or not as they will. Considering that many states had already put severe restrictions on abortions, as they were allowed to do under Roe vs Wade, and considering that from now on many 'liberal' states may even loosen up their abortion laws and make it easier for out-of-state women to come and have an abortion have you even gained anything? You are also aware that several large companies have already pledged support for their employees who might need to travel to another state to get an abortion. So, what have you gained? Well, not you personally since you don't even live in the US. Abortion has not been stopped in the US; it's just been shifted about. I think the overall effect of that will be to create greater differences between different areas of the country. So, again: what has actually been gained from your point of view? JVL

Okay. What about contraception? Would you be in favour of making it easily obtainable? I encourage it if you’re going to have sex take the necessary precautions and I can’t emphasize condoms enough because diseases don’t care about personal rights and they never have but you know what condoms prevent both AaronS1978

JVL “As a parent of a baby that died at childbirth (whose birthday is today in fact) “ This is heartbreaking, my sincere condolences. Vivid vividbleau

AaronS1978: But yes I think it is better now because I now have a voice Okay. And these are the majority of abortions I understand that a woman that has been raped might need to get an abortion, I understand incest, I understand the situation with a 15-year-old in the mothers life is in danger Okay. These barely make up a percent of the millions of abortions that take place every year based off of inconvenience I suspect that is true. Compromising would be helping fix the foster care program, make it easier for parents to adopt(more affordable) and teach the consequences of sex and abortions Okay. What about contraception? Would you be in favour of making it easily obtainable? And these are all things that I have supported for years and cannot find out or figure out why we can’t fix these things instead of immediately looking towards abortion to fix the problems That seems a fair question to me. The more abortions and terminations we can avoid the better I think. Thank you far taking the time to answer honestly and sincerely. I think you and I do agree on a lot actually and would both be willing to spend money on ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies. In fact I think we'd all prefer to avoid unwanted pregnancies so that abortions were an extremely rare event. JVL

JVL, the controversial and plainly ill founded decision was in 1973. This restores status quo ante and puts the matter in hands of the states and their voters. Meanwhile, 63 million are dead. KF kairosfocus

Jvl to answer your question now is better You might not agree with it but here’s why before it was the assumption that pro life needed to sit down and shut up while something that they viewed as baby murder proceeded to happen This was based solely on your definition of rights or let me rephrase that, the lefts Pro life is ridiculed constantly, attacked constantly, which is currently going on right now during riots, three crisis pregnancy centers have been attacked, Vandalized, and burned I am also well aware that the opposite is now happening in response to PP But here overall I now have a voice, I now can go to my state legislation with my wife and vote for what we believe in and not be forced to support something we consider baby murder If the state restricts it, that’s because the state voted for it And if one wants to bring up the mother’s life is endangered there are emergency C-sections and technology that prevents so many of those things and again if it’s an emergency and there’s no other option people make exceptions You might not like Texas’ law but it is their state I certainly don’t like California’s laws I view them as barbaric but they voted for it But yes I think it is better now because I now have a voice Do I think the overall state of the United States is better, no, and I do expect that the Democrats will have a temper tantrum as they are doing right now and make it very miserable for everybody until they get their way Which they have done multiple times now Do I think the United States is a shambles right now yes Do I think that our government is pathetic yes And in the 44 years that I’ve been alive this has been the worst time to live But this one little thing of lifting something I never supported and was forced to, yes I think that is better Now before we go on any further these are expected responses to what I posted because this has been what I have received I support the death of the mother I support rape I support slavery I’m going to take away gay rights I’m part some weird Christian nationalists out to kill left rights I don’t care about the child after they’re born Fetus is just a clump of cells You have a failed understanding of sex and gender You are a sexist List goes on But this is what I received even on this thread before I started getting nasty If you want to ask a question of why I believe what I believe I will respectfully answer it like I will ask why is it that you feel that terminating a pregnancy it’s OK and it’s not extinguishing the human life, why is it that you think it is an actual right when it can be so easily prevented Nobody’s trying to take away rights from any woman here we just don’t want the baby to be murdered after the baby has been made If we can spend two years avoiding a disease that had less than 1% mortality rate we can certainly exercise the responsibility to not get pregnant when we don’t want to And these are the majority of abortions I understand that a woman that has been raped might need to get an abortion, I understand incest, I understand the situation with a 15-year-old in the mothers life is in danger These barely make up a percent of the millions of abortions that take place every year based off of inconvenience Compromising would be helping fix the foster care program, make it easier for parents to adopt(more affordable) and teach the consequences of sex and abortions And these are all things that I have supported for years and cannot find out or figure out why we can’t fix these things instead of immediately looking towards abortion to fix the problems AaronS1978

Kairosfocus: Alito et al make the matter clear, the above is just the outline. Yes, I can read. Given that the US Supreme Court has handed down a controversial decision and given that you know that a lot of US citizens disagree with your views and given that you think a democratic form of government is preferred then IF you were a US citizen (which you are not) would you be willing to sit down with those you disagree with and attempt to find a compromise? JVL

JVL, emanations and penumbras. Alito et al make the matter clear, the above is just the outline. KF kairosfocus

JH at 251, I sure hope so. :) relatd

Relatd: To those who like to ask the same questions over and over, I’ve decided to not reply, especially after replying several times.

That will certainly reduce the level of rancour and baseless insults. JHolo

To those who like to ask the same questions over and over, I've decided to not reply, especially after replying several times. relatd

AaronS1978: I dealt with hundreds if not thousands of individuals like yourself who have shot first, imposed their narrative on me, made claims about my view that we are objectively false, and have Initiated attacks on my beliefs, often false attacks I have asked questions only to be rebuked and had my own morals and intelligence called into question. I have never 'imposed' any narrative on you; I may have asked questions which you may have found difficult to answer but that is not the same thing. So my reaction to you was immediately stand offish and unpleasant which I apologize for and I apologize for berating you Okay. I shall try harder not to make assumptions about your views. I expect to disagree with you; I'm happy to accept that we will disagree. I'm not expecting or even trying to change your beliefs; you've spent years and years thinking about them and living with them and they are right and true for you. I accept that. Somehow, given that, the US has to find a way to move forward even though people disagree. Under Roe vs Wade states had the right to restrict abortion quite a lot, many did. Now states have the right to ban it altogether (granted, it looks like most will still allow it in the cases when the mother's life is at risk). This may leave to other states loosening up their abortion laws and, potentially, setting up clinics just across state lines. You may not have gained anything at all. Which is 'better' in your opinion: the way it was or the way it is now? I'm listening. JVL

Relatd: So your reply is a joke? “I don’t live there ha, ha, ha,” But I want YOU to do something? Sorry. That falls under trolling. You are a troll. Nothing more. Thanks for calling me and my morals and beliefs into question, again. I made my assumptions based on your actual written behaviour. If you've given the wrong impression then I suggest you consider changing your behaviour and tone. If you really want someone who doesn't even live in the US offer an opinion of what US citizens should do . . . then I think the original 1973 Supreme Court decision was a good an workable compromise. It gave states some latitude regarding the extent of abortions allowed (which varied widely from state to state) and it was fairly 'workable' for half a century. The only difference is now some states can ban abortion altogether although many had already severely restricted it whilst still respecting Roe vs Wade. So, all you've gained is to stop any kind of abortions in some states. You haven't stopped it overall and, in fact, some states may even make their abortion laws less restrictive in response. You may not have 'gained' anything. You know what I think? You think you know what I think? A tip: BEFORE you go and start making ASSUMPTIONS about ANYBODY – ask them what they think. Assume nothing. ASK them. You’ll be better off, including in real life. You may have noticed someone complaining because I ask too many questions. You may also have noticed that I try hard NOT to call other people's morals and ethics and intelligence and motivations into question. I am willing to compromise . . . or would be if I had a dog in the race. I'll ask you again: are you willing to have a civilised and respectful conversation and try and find a compromise? JVL

JVL at 246, So your reply is a joke? "I don't live there ha, ha, ha," But I want YOU to do something? Sorry. That falls under trolling. You are a troll. Nothing more. You know what I think? You think you know what I think? A tip: BEFORE you go and start making ASSUMPTIONS about ANYBODY - ask them what they think. Assume nothing. ASK them. You'll be better off, including in real life. "I have zero respect" for your assumptions. relatd

Relatd: Tell me. What is your compromise solution? I don't have one and it's not for me to decide since I don't live in the US any more. It's up to the US citizens to find one. Or keep trying to tear the country apart by not even looking. Who is demonising anyone? Are you assuming I’m doing that? Why? I’m pointing out scientific facts. Facts. Do you understand? You do it all the time. You call people's morals and intelligence into question quite frequently. You think that people who disagree with you are stupid or deluded or evil. Your final sentence is just another example. You have zero respect for people whose views are different from yours. You don't think they should be listened to or taken seriously. I suspect you think they shouldn't even be allowed to vote. But they are allowed to vote which is why you should talk to them instead of at them. JVL

@232 you have effectively summed up my outrage, do you JVL think you were or are the only liberal I’ve dealt with I dealt with hundreds if not thousands of individuals like yourself who have shot first, imposed their narrative on me, made claims about my view that we are objectively false, and have Initiated attacks on my beliefs, often false attacks Of those many only a few sat down to talk and genuinely ask questions The rest, aggressive, berating, condescending, self absorbed, arrogant elitists, with the SAME cookie cutter arguments which has lead me to believe the beliefs are genetic, brainwashing, or both I’m sorry I berated you, I am a jerk I know, but that jerk was forge from the crucible of crap that composed of left elitists jerks that frequently attacked me for my personal beliefs with out ever engaging them in the first place. This was my experience in college and many other places So my reaction to you was immediately stand offish and unpleasant which I apologize for and I apologize for berating you AaronS1978

JVL at 242, So what would you do? Come on. Let's hear it. What would you do? What "democracy" are you talking about? The Leftist-Liberals want the Constitution to say what they want it to say. They want everything to go back to the way it was: abortion on demand and SEX with anybody. Wake up. relatd

JH at 239, More Leftist propaganda. Followed by more Leftist propaganda. So you're a landowner. Big deal. Why is that important? So what I'm getting is: The Founders were bad. They owned slaves. And land. Oh, brother. relatd

Silver Asiatic: Perhaps you could try just asking one and then reflecting on the response. In a real-life dialogue, for example, you wouldn’t just ask a person a question, then another and another before you got a reply. I find that the 'one question at a time' approach sometimes means a conversation takes days and days and frequently a reply is missed as it's buried under a plethora of replies to other questions and answers posed and proposed by others. Also, since I live in a time zone much different from many other contributors I am not available for quick, live conversations. Even in 1973 the Supreme Court did not grant unlimited abortions but now they have left open that door by giving the right to legislate back to the states. I'm not sure that is actually better for anyone. If some states ban abortions and others grant even late term abortions then I'd say things would be worse than before. I wonder when the first abortion clinic will be set up just across some state border? I don't think you should conflate different issues with different constitutional grounds and protections. Also, you have a very US-centric view of things. It wasn't just the liberals in America who were asking for same-sex couples to be granted the legal right to marry; there has been a general movement in that direction all through the first world countries and many second and third. Same with gun control. If you think that the US should shun social and moral changes embraced by many, many other countries then I suggest you spend more time supporting candidates who agree with you and making sure like minded citizens vote instead of staying home in droves. But, again, I think the best approach is for everyone to really listen to each other and find a middle ground that is acceptable to at least a decent majority of people. The US is a democracy which means you can't always get what you want and if you want to live there you have to accept that. JVL

"I am a white male landowner." JH, You should turn over all your property to BLM, renounce your Whiteness, and go away. Andrew asauber

SA at 232, "Yes, exactly. That side was quiet for decades and got stepped on and run over by the cultural revolution. That side is still quiet in many ways, enduring injustices and hostility from the national media, corporate policies and academia. The difference is that they’re quietly fighting back – as this decision on Roe v Wade reveals." The "cultural revolution" was about sex with anybody. It was not about culture, just sex. Who was quiet? When I stood with a group of others in front of an abortion clinic just like others around the country? That's quiet? Cars driving by, honking their horns in protest, people yelling obscenities or giving obscene gestures? That is quiet? We weren't "FIGHTING" with anybody. Only Leftists/Anarchists/Communists are interested in that. From the late 1960s: "We'll burn this country down if we have to!" Oh yeah? And who gave you this authority? So what is happening right now is not new. NOT new. relatd

Relatd: Are you white? Did you own slaves? Neither did I.

Yes. I am a white male landowner. As were every single one of the founders. And, to boot, many of them were slave owners, and they made sure that slavery was allowed in the constitution. They also made sure that the only other people allowed to take part in decision making for the new country were other white male landowners. JHolo

"They are human beings" JVL, Take this and apply it to human babies. You'll do anything but address the issue. Andrew asauber

SA at 235, If any NEWS media person tells me the country is "divided" then they are lying. The blame for any violence falls squarely on those involved, not "The Country." relatd

JVL at 233, Tell me. What is your compromise solution? I worked at a hospital. I saw a mother with her 12 year old pregnant daughter in the X-Ray department. I know a nurse whose baby died in childbirth. In that case, she had no choice over that. She did not know it was going to happen. Pregnant women are making a choice before childbirth when it comes to abortion.. Who is demonising anyone? Are you assuming I'm doing that? Why? I'm pointing out scientific facts. Facts. Do you understand? relatd

And violent pro abortionists in Portland https://www.nationalreview.com/news/violent-portland-pro-abortion-protesters-destroy-vandalize-property/ Silver Asiatic

AS1978 at 231, Checks watch. Right on time. Such action is not civilized. Period. relatd

Relatd: The “honest attempt” would be to recognize the scientific fact that the baby growing in the womb is a human being. So, are you willing to having a discussion with the people you disagree with in an attempt to find a compromise position? You’ll let women kill half or twenty-five percent? As a parent of a baby that died at childbirth (whose birthday is today in fact) who do you think is responsible? Should I sue the hospital? Should I sue the attending doctors and nurses? Should I go to church and rail at God for being so heartless and cruel? Who is responsible for something that still haunts me . . . that moment when I could tell something was wrong, the panicked look in the eyes of the medical staff. The very, very least you could do is to be willing to considerately and with a real desire to understand talk to the people you disagree with. They are human beings, not that much different than you. It does no good for both sides to demonise the other. JVL

JVL

I was berated for asking questions

You often ask several questions at one time - 6 or 7 consecutive questions. Perhaps you could try just asking one and then reflecting on the response. In a real-life dialogue, for example, you wouldn't just ask a person a question, then another and another before you got a reply.

Abortion, gun control, trans rights, same-sex marriages are all creating gulfs between people and no one is willing to find a compromise anymore.

It's a good insight and a troubling development. As I see it, one side has been willing to compromise over the years. The other side never did and never needed to. They just promised that there was no slippery slope. "Just allow gay unions - of course, nobody is going to demand gay marriage". Or "just allow abortion up to 6 weeks, nobody would ever ask for unlimited abortion rights". So, the other side compromised continually. But lately, that side has realized that it has been a scam all along. Compromises were just losses in the culture war. They were surrenders and nothing good ever came from them. So, that side just took the gloves off. It's a bare-fisted fight now. There are just winners and losers - as it has always been, but it was under the cover of "we're getting along well, as long as you concede with our program". I've heard people say "I wish conservatives would just be like they used to be and have good dialogues and be quiet about things". Yes, exactly. That side was quiet for decades and got stepped on and run over by the cultural revolution. That side is still quiet in many ways, enduring injustices and hostility from the national media, corporate policies and academia. The difference is that they're quietly fighting back - as this decision on Roe v Wade reveals. Silver Asiatic

This just in protests about the overturning of Roe vs Wade have broken out into violent riots because democrats are rational and peaceful https://azfreenews.com/2022/06/abortion-protest-turns-to-riot-leaving-significant-criminal-damage/ AaronS1978

JVL at 228, Were you ever an embryo or fetus? If the answer is yes, where would you compromise? You'll let women kill half or twenty-five percent? The "honest attempt" would be to recognize the scientific fact that the baby growing in the womb is a human being. relatd

AaronS & KF - yes it indicates that people are ignorant about what this ruling means. States can vote to have unlimited abortion rights - as horrifying and barbaric as that is. Silver Asiatic

Relatd: Saying the truth is how everyone moves forward. The truth is that a lot of people disagree with you about the right, or not, for a woman to chose to terminate a pregnancy within a certain time limit. (Notice, above, that even in 1973 the Supreme Court acknowledged that it was perfectly reasonable to limit the abortion window as has been the case ever since.) So, are you willing to sit down and talk with those you disagree with in an honest attempt to find a compromise solution? JVL

To everyone here who is "fighting" for abortion, is the following true? I did not begin life as a fertilized egg. I was never an embryo or fetus. relatd

Biden, Biden, Biden, When your girlfriend gets pregnant, what are you going to do? Call Biden? relatd

JVL at 209, Saying the truth is how everyone moves forward. The baby growing in the womb, human or not? Answer that question. relatd

FH at 208, The true culprits are anyone who believes that the baby growing in the womb is less than human. relatd

FH at 205, It should be changed so I can make it do what I want it to? So I can get want I want? Question: Did you begin life as a fertilized egg? Yes or no? relatd

JH at 200, Are you white? Did you own slaves? Neither did I. Stop with the propaganda. Just stop it. relatd

ET: There isn’t anything in the US Constitution that guarantees access to abortions. 50 years ago, the SC made it up out of thin air. That group messed up. Of course they didn't make it up out of thin air.

After dealing with mootness and standing, the Court proceeded to the main issue of the case: the constitutionality of Texas's abortion law. The Court first surveyed abortion's status throughout the legal history of Roman law and the Anglo-American common law.[6] It also reviewed the developments of medical procedures and technology used in abortions.[6] After its historical surveys, the Court introduced the concept of a constitutional "right to privacy" that it said had been intimated in its earlier decisions Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which involved parental control over childrearing, and Griswold v. Connecticut, which involved the use of contraception.[6] Then, "with virtually no further explanation of the privacy value",[7] the Court ruled that regardless of exactly which provisions were involved, the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that protected a pregnant woman's decision whether to abort a pregnancy.[6] This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy. —?Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.[107] The Court reasoned that outlawing abortions would infringe a pregnant woman's right to privacy for several reasons: having unwanted children "may force upon the woman a distressful life and future"; it may bring imminent psychological harm; caring for the child may tax the mother's physical and mental health; and because there may be "distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child".[108] At the same time, the Court rejected the notion that this right to privacy was absolute.[6] It held instead that women's abortion right must be balanced against other government interests, such as protecting maternal health and protecting the life of the fetus.[6] The Court held that the interests were sufficiently compelling to permit states to impose some limitations on pregnant women's right to choose to have an abortion.[109] A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. —?Roe, 410 U.S. at 154. Texas's lawyers had argued that limiting abortion to situations where the mother's life was in danger was justified because life began at the moment of conception, and therefore the state's governmental interest in protecting prenatal life applied to all pregnancies regardless of their stage.[7] But the Court said that there was no indication that the Constitution's uses of the word "person" were meant to include fetuses, and it rejected Texas's argument that a fetus should be considered a "person" with a legal and constitutional right to life.[110] The Court observed that there was still great disagreement over when an unborn fetus becomes a living being.[110] We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. —?Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.[111] To balance women's rights to privacy and state governments' interests in protecting mothers' health and prenatal life, the Court created the trimester framework.[112][113] During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[7] Having completed its analysis, the Court concluded that Texas's abortion statutes were unconstitutional and struck them down. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. —?Roe, 410 U.S. at 164.

JVL

The statement alone invalidates everyone advocating that abortion rights have been taken away Thank you KF for posting the decision “The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives. Pp. 78–79” AaronS1978

ET, for convenience, the syllabus (and many will have looked at the preliminary draft that was leaked): >> 1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1392. Argued December 1, 2021—Decided June 24, 2022 Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act provides that “[e]xcept in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn hu- man being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.” Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191. Respondents—Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic, and one of its doctors—challenged the Act in Federal District Court, alleging that it violated this Court’s prec- edents establishing a constitutional right to abortion, in particular Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833. The District Court granted summary judg- ment in favor of respondents and permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act, reasoning that Mississippi’s 15-week restriction on abortion violates this Court’s cases forbidding States to ban abortion pre-viabil- ity. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Before this Court, petitioners defend the Act on the grounds that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the Act is constitutional because it satisfies rational-basis review. Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. Pp. 8–79. (a) The critical question is whether the Constitution, properly un- derstood, confers a right to obtain an abortion. Casey’s controlling opinion skipped over that question and reaffirmed Roe solely on the basis of stare decisis. A proper application of stare decisis, however, requires an assessment of the strength of the grounds on which Roe was based. The Court therefore turns to the question that the Casey plurality did not consider. Pp. 8–32. (1) First, the Court reviews the standard that the Court’s cases have used to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s refer- ence to “liberty” protects a particular right. The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, but several con- stitutional provisions have been offered as potential homes for an im- plicit constitutional right. Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See 410 U. S., at 152–153. The Casey Court grounded its decision solely on the theory that the right to obtain an abortion is part of the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amend- ment’s Due Process Clause. Others have suggested that support can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, but that theory is squarely foreclosed by the Court’s precedents, which es- tablish that a State’s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classifi- cation and is thus not subject to the heightened scrutiny that applies to such classifications. See Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U. S. 484, 496, n. 20; Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 273– 274. Rather, regulations and prohibitions of abortion are governed by the same standard of review as other health and safety measures. Pp. 9–11. (2) Next, the Court examines whether the right to obtain an abor- tion is rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and whether it is an essential component of “ordered liberty.” The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradi- tion. The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Four- teenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for “liberty”—has long been controversial. The Court’s decisions have held that the Due Process Clause pro- tects two categories of substantive rights—those rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Consti- tution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the question is whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to this Nation’s “scheme of or- dered liberty.” [--> hence natural law thought] Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (internal quotation marks omitted). The term “liberty” alone provides little guidance. Thus, historical inquiries are essential whenever the Court is asked to recognize a new component of the “liberty” interest protected by the Due Process Clause. In interpreting what is meant by “liberty,” the Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Court’s own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. For this reason, the Court has been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not men- tioned in the Constitution. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125. Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential compo- nents of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abor- tion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s ex- panded criminal liability for abortions. By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abor- tion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis. Respondents’ argument that this history does not matter flies in the face of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime. Moreover, many authorities as- serted that even a pre-quickening abortion was “unlawful” and that, as a result, an abortionist was guilty of murder if the woman died from the attempt. The Solicitor General suggests that history supports an abortion right because of the common law’s failure to criminalize abor- tion before quickening, but the insistence on quickening was not uni- versal, see Mills v. Commonwealth, 13 Pa. 631, 633; State v. Slagle, 83 N. C. 630, 632, and regardless, the fact that many States in the late 18th and early 19th century did not criminalize pre-quickening abor- tions does not mean that anyone thought the States lacked the author- ity to do so. Instead of seriously pressing the argument that the abortion right itself has deep roots, supporters of Roe and Casey contend that the abortion right is an integral part of a broader entrenched right. Roe termed this a right to privacy, 410 U. S., at 154, and Casey described it as the freedom to make “intimate and personal choices” that are “central to personal dignity and autonomy,” 505 U. S., at 851. Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing inter- ests. Roe and Casey each struck a particular balance between the in- terests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed “potential life.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 150; Casey, 505 U. S., at 852. But the people of the various States may evaluate those inter- ests differently. The Nation’s historical understanding of ordered lib- erty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from decid- ing how abortion should be regulated. Pp. 11–30. (3) Finally, the Court considers whether a right to obtain an abor- tion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents. The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of such a right. Attempts to justify abor- tion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. What sharply distin- guishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion is different because it destroys what Roe termed “potential life” and what the law challenged in this case calls an “unborn human being.” None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. Ac- cordingly, those cases do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and the Court’s conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way. Pp. 30–32. (b) The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued ac- ceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role and protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision. It “reduces incentives for challenging settled prece- dents, saving parties and courts the expense of endless relitigation.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446, 455. It “contrib- utes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827. And it restrains judicial hubris by respecting the judgment of those who grappled with important questions in the past. But stare decisis is not an inexorable command, Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233, and “is at its weakest when [the Court] interpret[s] the Constitution,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235. Some of the Court’s most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Educa- tion, 347 U. S. 483, 491 (overruling the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, and its progeny). The Court’s cases have identified factors that should be considered in deciding when a precedent should be overruled. Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___. Five factors discussed below weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey. Pp. 39–66. (1) The nature of the Court’s error. Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided. Casey per- petuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a win- ning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe. Pp. 43–45. (2) The quality of the reasoning. Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, Roe imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation. See 410 U. S., at 163–164. Roe’s failure even to note the overwhelming consensus of state laws in effect in 1868 is striking, and what it said about the common law was simply wrong. Then, after surveying his- tory, the opinion spent many paragraphs conducting the sort of fact- finding that might be undertaken by a legislative committee, and did not explain why the sources on which it relied shed light on the mean- ing of the Constitution. As to precedent, citing a broad array of cases, the Court found support for a constitutional “right of personal privacy.” Id., at 152. But Roe conflated the right to shield information from dis- closure and the right to make and implement important personal de- cisions without governmental interference. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 599–600. None of these decisions involved what is distinc- tive about abortion: its effect on what Roe termed “potential life.” When the Court summarized the basis for the scheme it imposed on the country, it asserted that its rules were “consistent with,” among other things, “the relative weights of the respective interests involved” and “the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 165. These are precisely the sort of considerations that legislative bodies often take into account when they draw lines that accommodate competing interests. The scheme Roe produced looked like legislation, and the Court provided the sort of explanation that might be expected from a legislative body. An even more glaring defi- ciency was Roe’s failure to justify the critical distinction it drew be- tween pre- and post-viability abortions. See id., at 163. The arbitrary viability line, which Casey termed Roe’s central rule, has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion. The most obvious problem with any such argument is that viability has changed over time and is heavily de- pendent on factors—such as medical advances and the availability of quality medical care—that have nothing to do with the characteristics of a fetus. When Casey revisited Roe almost 20 years later, it reaffirmed Roe’s central holding, but pointedly refrained from endorsing most of its rea- soning. The Court abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and in- stead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amend- ment’s Due Process Clause. 505 U. S., at 846. The controlling opinion criticized and rejected Roe’s trimester scheme, 505 U. S., at 872, and substituted a new and obscure “undue burden” test. Casey, in short, either refused to reaffirm or rejected important aspects of Roe’s analy- sis, failed to remedy glaring deficiencies in Roe’s reasoning, endorsed what it termed Roe’s central holding while suggesting that a majority might not have thought it was correct, provided no new support for the abortion right other than Roe’s status as precedent, and imposed a new test with no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or prece- dent. Pp. 45–56. (3) Workability. Deciding whether a precedent should be over- ruled depends in part on whether the rule it imposes is workable—that is, whether it can be understood and applied in a consistent and pre- dictable manner. Casey’s “undue burden” test has scored poorly on the workability scale. The Casey plurality tried to put meaning into the “undue burden” test by setting out three subsidiary rules, but these rules created their own problems. And the difficulty of applying Ca- sey’s new rules surfaced in that very case. Compare 505 U. S., at 881– 887, with id., at 920–922 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissent- ing in part). The experience of the Courts of Appeals provides further evidence that Casey’s “line between” permissible and unconstitutional restrictions “has proved to be impossible to draw with precision.” Ja- nus, 585 U. S., at ___. Casey has generated a long list of Circuit con- flicts. Continued adherence to Casey’s unworkable “undue burden” test would undermine, not advance, the “evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles.” Payne, 501 U. S., at 827. Pp. 56–62. (4) Effect on other areas of law. Roe and Casey have led to the distortion of many important but unrelated legal doctrines, and that effect provides further support for overruling those decisions. See Ra- mos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part). Pp. 62–63. (5) Reliance interests. Overruling Roe and Casey will not upend concrete reliance interests like those that develop in “cases involving property and contract rights.” Payne, 501 U. S., at 828. In Casey, the controlling opinion conceded that traditional reliance interests were not implicated because getting an abortion is generally “unplanned ac- tivity,” and “reproductive planning could take virtually immediate ac- count of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions.” 505 U. S., at 856. Instead, the opinion perceived a more intangible form of reliance, namely, that “people [had] organized intimate rela- tionships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society . . . in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail” and that “[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Na- tion has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Ibid. The contending sides in this case make impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women as well as the status of the fetus. The Casey plurality’s speculative attempt to weigh the relative importance of the interests of the fetus and the mother represent a departure from the “original constitutional proposition” that “courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.” Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 729–730. The Solicitor General suggests that overruling Roe and Casey would threaten the protection of other rights under the Due Process Clause. The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. [--> those are to be separately addressed] Pp. 63–66. (c) Casey identified another concern, namely, the danger that the public will perceive a decision overruling a controversial “watershed” decision, such as Roe, as influenced by political considerations or pub- lic opinion. 505 U. S., at 866–867. But the Court cannot allow its de- cisions to be affected by such extraneous concerns. A precedent of this Court is subject to the usual principles of stare decisis under which adherence to precedent is the norm but not an inexorable command. If the rule were otherwise, erroneous decisions like Plessy would still be the law. The Court’s job is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly. Pp. 66–69. (d) Under the Court’s precedents, rational-basis review is the appro- priate standard to apply when state abortion regulations undergo con- stitutional challenge. Given that procuring an abortion is not a funda- mental constitutional right, it follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are chal- lenged under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.” Ferguson, 372 U. S., at 729–730. That applies even when the laws at issue con- cern matters of great social significance and moral substance. A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319. It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. Id., at 320. Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act is supported by the Mississippi Legislature’s specific findings, which include the State’s asserted in- terest in “protecting the life of the unborn.” §2(b)(i). These legitimate interests provide a rational basis for the Gestational Age Act, and it follows that respondents’ constitutional challenge must fail. Pp. 76– 78. (e) Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohib- iting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives. Pp. 78–79. 945 F. 3d 265, reversed and remanded. ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GOR- SUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and KA- VANAUGH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. >> A summary within a 233 pp document. KF kairosfocus

@FH So everyone but democrats huh? “Who are the true culprits? Republicans? Right wing fundamentalist Christians? Libertarians? Corporate moguls? Their stockholders? Trump selling “secret messages” for 45 bucks?” Good and biased Let me add a few more Nancy Pelosi using insider info and investing 1.2 million in Tesla after pushing the GND through. Joe Biden mandating a faulty vaccine after he said he wouldn’t, the vaccine create 9 new billionaires in big pharma, Joe Biden costing the United States 86 billion in military equipment loss in a botched(maybe) pull out of the Middle East also cost soldiers their lives, BLM holding cities hostage for 8 months and cause over 500 million in damages over a criminal killed by a criminal, anything Clinton, Hunter Biden and his zany adventures with his father being a criminal which looks like it will bite Biden in the butt, Bidenflation, Biden gas prices now he admitted the rise was part of his plan, court stacking admitted by Biden, liberal controlled Twitter being gutted by Elon Musk and forced to reveal 5% of their users where bots created by them of which 50% of Biden’s followers were their bots, list goes on and on and on There’s some culprits for you, are you really that blind to the corrupt nature of your party AaronS1978

JVL:

The thing that I find the most sad about the recent Supreme Court ruling is that the United States looks to becoming the Un-united States.

Your ignorance of the Law and what the Supreme Court is, is not an argument. There isn't anything in the US Constitution that guarantees access to abortions. 50 years ago, the SC made it up out of thin air. That group messed up. The thing that is most sad is the total disregard for human life that goes hand-in-hand with abortion for birth control. ET

The US Constitution has been questioned and amended 27 times! But it's stupid to think there will be an amendment allowing for the wholesale slaughter of society's most vulnerable. ET

When is it NOT OK to end the life of an innocent human? ET

Not one person here has read the Supreme Court's decision that overturned Roe. ET

Fred Hickson:

My initial point that RNA World refutes Upright Biped’s hypothesis is sufficient.

Then you are a fool and a liar.

There’s no point in me posting further comments in a buried thread unless he’s interested in substantive discussion.

YOU are not interested in a discussion. You have yet to post anything of substance. In an open debate with judges, you would have been demolished. ET

PPS, the current situation can, in my view, be readily understood in the light of this principle of secondary legitimacy of law and of sound reformation as critical mass arises. Reform, of course, is almost always strongly (and, sometimes, violently) opposed by entrenched interests. kairosfocus

F/N: Let us return to law, here, the issue of hardness of heart compromises and law that is strictly sub-standard but legitimate at a second level. As in, what one can reasonably do in a circumstance with entrenched evils or want of capability to go to another level? E.g., until the printing revolution, the vernacular Bible, the rise of coffee shops etc opening up public discussion and opinion, the wider impacts of the protestant reformation etc -- i.e. from 1688 - 1787 on -- there was no space for a stable constitutional democracy. So, here is a discussion on law with defects:

Mark C. Murphy reads Aquinas [--> who summarised the classical and Christian thought in Summa Theologica, in the 1200's] as having formulated the central natural law thesis that, ‘‘necessarily, law is a rational standard for conduct.’’ [--> cf Cicero on law as highest reason, regarding what ought/ought not to be done in the context of life and community towards good order] Though it is not so easily refuted as many have thought, Murphy acknowledges that natural law theory is nonetheless ‘‘marked by ambiguity and unclarity at its core’’ – a condition that he attempts to correct. Murphy defines and defends an inter-mediate ‘‘Weak Reading’’ of the central thesis – one also advocated by John Finnis – according to which irrational or insufficiently rational laws are treated as laws, but defective laws, in the same way that the existence of lame cheetahs is to be recon-ciled with the truth that, necessarily [--> by nature], cheetahs are fast runners. Natural law differs from legal posi-tivism (whose ‘‘generic thesis’’ is that the status of a social rule as a law is entirely independent of its status as a rational standard) in holding that there is a rational standard internal to law that makes an irrational law a defective though valid law. Parting company with Finnis, Murphy argues that the better line of defense of natural law begins with the idea that law is a functional kind, that is, a kind of thing characterized by its function. [--> notice, issues of distinct identity pivoting on core characteristics] Murphy treats several objections to this functionalist approach, and concludes that law need not have a characteristic end (such as social order, or justice) to serve as a functional kind, so long as law employs certain characteristic means to achieve what ends it serves. [--> ends implicit and inherent to the structure and function, it seems] What remains is to describe those characteristic means as essentially involving a background in which humans are en-gaged in their characteristic activity as rational beings, namely, acting for reasons. Law’s charac-teristic means, Murphy concludes, are ‘‘to pro-vide dictates backed by compelling reasons for action, and . . . law that fails to do so is defective as law.’’ [William Edmundson, in The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, 2005, pp. 1 - 2]

Of course, I respond that law and government, when they function properly, defend the civil peace of justice, but obviously falling short of an acknowledged end is not the same as undermining that core characteristic. In that context, there are built in first duties of reason that are pervasive, branch on which we all sit first principles, first law. Law, properly, articulates from these. However, in a given time and place, errors may be made and compromises with entrenched evils may have to be made, generally with some amelioration. For capital example, there is no doubt that rum and other highly distilled drinks, once they were widely available and cheap enough, did huge damage. Ideally, rum should be banned or restricted with stringent rules. However, as there is an entrenched demand, we can only regulate and restrict to a much lower degree of control than would be strictly better. The classic example of unenforceable regulation, here, was the American experiment with prohibition, which not only failed but reinforced organised crime and fed a climate of lawlessness that has never fully been worked through. So, substandard compromise ameliorative law can serve a reasonable purpose, and in some cases can lead onward to more adequate reform as hearts are softened and a critical mass of support emerges. In this secondary sense it serves the civil peace of justice and has a degree of secondary legitimacy. I argue, that this obtains for slavery and the slave trade in the past several centuries. As the evil was recognised, a movement of reform first targetted the trade as low hanging fruit, indefensible as based on kidnapping. Then, as the evangelical revival progressed, a strong enough support arose to move to outright banning of the institution, which was always recognised as contrary to the principle of liberty as a natural right. That is in Corpus Juris Civilis, and we find an echo in Locke, who saw enslavement as an alternative to execution for cause; a sort of lifetime imprisonment. We thus see how a once universal institution has been restrained and in most of the world abolished. However, for cause the antislavery society still exists and still addresses ongoing and modern subtler forms of enslavement. the underlying point here is, that order is pivotal for human thriving and that law must be practically enforceable. So, significantly substandard law may have a legitimate purpose. In some cases, onward abolition or the like may not even be a reasonable prospect, as has happened with rum and other similar things. KF PS, This of course answers to the attempt to use slavery to dismiss the lessons learned and applied by the US founders and framers. If we will not learn from history bought with blood and tears, we doom ourselves to pay the same coin over and over again. kairosfocus

JVL, the issues on the table are quite simple. First, has there been a mass slaughter of our living posterity in the womb under colour of law? Yes. Second, are the victims human and thus possessed of rights starting with life? Yes. Third, was the colour of law legitimate? No, as Alito takes pains to decisively expose, with five others agreeing (Thomas wished to fix other matters under the same mistaken principles) and we can see that above essentially no objector was willing to take on Alito's argument on the merits. Fourth, did the ruling take away a right of "choice"? No, as there can be no proper right to kill another at will, a point underscored by the manifestly false claim that it is a woman's body . . . half the time the unborn child is not even the same sex. Fifth, what did the ruling do? It corrrected an erroneous and evidently arbitrary pattern of US SC decision making, withdrew colour of law for mass slaughter, implying that penumbras and emanations were and are not there, and restored status quo ante, it is the states and their voters who are left to choose what to do. This last is actually where onward the issue is going to be to correct legal positivism and to recognise first built in law and how it articulates into a lawful framework for government. To which, I will now return my focus. If you have substantial responses to these points or even links, kindly give them. KF PS, Nominalism is still an issue, so, kindly show us a nine sided hexagon. kairosfocus

Silver Asiatic: If you believe you have the truth about something, then you should make your case. If you’re not successful then try other arguments or try to understand your opposition’s points better to see where the conflict lies. I believe I have tried to understand other people's thoughts and reasoning and if you look back up the thread you will find that, aside from the usual name-calling and assumptions about my beliefs, I was berated for asking questions. I would like to have an open, honest and civilised discussion about the issues. I don't expect to change anyone's mind but the level of animosity, non-collegial discourse and intransigent beliefs leads me to decide that carrying on the conversation is pointless. The thing that I find the most sad about the recent Supreme Court ruling is that the United States looks to becoming the Un-united States. Abortion, gun control, trans rights, same-sex marriages are all creating gulfs between people and no one is willing to find a compromise anymore. It's all my way or no way. I don't have nor pretend to have all the answers. I am willing to lay all cards on the table and try and find some middle ground we can all live with, no one will be completely happy but how else do you move forward? JVL

They get ordinary people to fight each other in order to distract people from the true culprits.

Who are the true culprits? Republicans? Right wing fundamentalist Christians? Libertarians? Corporate moguls? Their stockholders? Trump selling "secret messages" for 45 bucks? Fred Hickson

– Prisons continue to be overcrowded, brutal places with substandard food and living conditions.

but profitable with the right business approach. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/ Fred Hickson

Kairosfocus @201, I agree with you and would add that the self-righteous and self-serving politics that many espouse demonstrates a profound ignorance of both history and the injustices that continue to be ignored in the current narrative. They should read Kenneth Stampp's classic: https://www.amazon.com/Peculiar-Institution-Slavery-Ante-Bellum-South/dp/0679723072 and Frederick Douglas's book https://www.amazon.com/Narrative-Life-Frederick-Douglass-American/dp/B08FKSHDM3 Farm workers, many of whom are undocumented immigrants are the de facto slaves in our "progressive" society and don't receive a decent living wage under brutal working conditions. The progressives couldn't care less. This also includes underpaid H1B technical workers who are always under threat of deportation. - Immigration reform hasn't happened under Democrat nor Republican administrations despite all their pretended caring about people dying in the desert or in the sea. - Prisons continue to be overcrowded, brutal places with substandard food and living conditions. The fact remains that certain minorities have a much higher incarceration rate due to decades of government policy that encouraged the breakup of traditional family units, inhumanely dense public housing, scandalously poor public education, and a de facto prenatal genocide machine that targets a disproportionately high percentage of minority women for massive profits. The infamous Dredd Scott v. Sanford decision denied citizenship to American of African descent. But the Roe v. Wade decision denied babies the classification as even human. I had a professor, the chairman of his department, once who seriously advocated that abortions should be legal up to the age of two years, arguing that it was inhumane to not terminate "an unwanted child." All this speaks volumes regarding those who hypocritically criticize America. They're really no different than the slaveholders of the past. Basically, today's "woke" progressives offer the same benefits and working conditions that plantation owners provided their slaves, namely free food, free housing, free medical care, and guaranteed lifetime employment, except instead of iron chains, they trap people in red tape, programs, and policies. The difference is that the prior to the Civil War, the slave owners and factory owners were more direct about their rationalizations and abuses, while the today's plantation owners: big business, big agriculture, big media, big pharma, big education, big entertainment, and big government are indirect and hypocritical. They get ordinary people to fight each other in order to distract people from the true culprits. Their goals remain the same. While pretending to be more humane, they realize words are cheap, but their system impoverishes and enslaves the majority of people while amassing unimaginable wealth and power for themselves. And now they have the gall to want to advocate removing the Constitution, our only protection from those who want to create more socialist worker's "paradises" such as in Chicago, San Francisco, New York City, and Washington, D.C. God save us from monsters like these and their drones! -Q Querius

Am I the only one who thinks that the constitution should be questioned?

I think it should be questioned and amended. It is a document made for its time, not inscribed in stone. Fred Hickson

So why don’t you go back and try to make a coherent case against what Upright Biped explained to you?

My initial point that RNA World refutes Upright Biped's hypothesis is sufficient. If Upright Biped wants to develop his argument, that is up to him and I've suggested ways that could happen. There's no point in me posting further comments in a buried thread unless he's interested in substantive discussion. Fred Hickson

Jholo are you a liberal/democratic? If you are I’m pretty sure your party is historically responsible for the civil war, owned slaves, killed Lincoln, Jim Crow laws, and many other excitingly wonderful racist, sexist, and discriminatory things So I really hope your not telling people to question the constitution based on slave owning white men when your whole party is that and then some. It has only been with in the last 80 years that they supposedly started not being the above mentioned things AaronS1978

KF: JH, a pernicious ad hom laced strawman, and you know it

Oh. I apologize. They weren’t white, slave owning landowners that enshrined slavery in the constitution and did not allow blacks, Asians, women, non land owners and indigenous peoples a say in the running of the country? I think the constitution and written history would beg to differ. JHolo

JH, a pernicious ad hom laced strawman, and you know it. In fact, Jefferson et al had the moral courage to indict themselves and accept that they made hardness of heart compromises that needed to be eventually overcome [e.g. see the built in 20 year clause on slave trade] because they were convinced of certain foundational moral truths underpinning and constituting core built in law which framed a new space for government, a constitutional, lawful republic with significant democratic character. It is their success that then built what you so obviously despise and would discard on a toxic and distorted accusation . That you resort to such tactics implies that you do not have an answer on merits but intend to continue the policy that has produced the worst mass slaughter of innocents in history, 1.4 billion. Do you really intend that mass slaughter of the innocents is acceptable and even a right? That is absurd. So are the many attempts to dehumanise the unbord child, to create a frame under colour of law in which s/he may be freely killed. If I were to use the same disqualification by tainting standard, every advocate of such a policy would be deemed a pariah and silenced. Shame on you. Find a substantial response to what is on the table regarding the poor decision and argument involved in Roe, and/or the concept of a built in moral government that is expressed in branch on which we all sit first principles, and thus first law framing lawful government, or stand exposed as supporting the indefensible by the most crude of fallacies. KF kairosfocus

The biggest question is why white, slave owning men who have been dead for two centuries can still dictate what women can do. The same men who ensconced slavery in the constitution, and didn’t allow women, Asians, blacks, indigenous peoples and non landowners to have a say in how the country is run. Am I the only one who thinks that the constitution should be questioned? JHolo

Fred Hickson @132,

I’ve addressed UB in that thread. If UB has more to say, I’ll respond. You don’t appear to grasp the central issue.

You "addressed" Upright Biped, but all that you offered was what-if speculation and a link to Wikipedia. Your final "rebuttal to Upright Biped was:

I’ve read through my comments on this thread and I think I’ve covered everything I need to say regarding UBs hypothesis.

That's it? That's your response to what I reposted from Upright Biped in 131 above after you conceded that he had some good points and promising him you'd get back in a few days? What you appear to be doing after your arguments got destroyed is simply to reiterate your completely speculative position, make bogus claims about having addressed the subject sufficiently, make ad hominem attacks, and ask why Upright Biped hasn't got anything published on the subject, and then happily move on to voicing your opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court. such as

PS, There IS illegitimacy in the US Supreme Court. Undeniable! And if you compare the qualifications of the appointee in waiting with those of Amy Coney Barrett it is starkly illustrative of Barrett’s illegitimate position.

So why don't you go back and try to make a coherent case against what Upright Biped explained to you? The link is waiting for you here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-gunter-bechly-repudiates-professor-daves-attacks-against-id/#comment-759110:~:text=from%20the%20start.-,644,-Upright%20BiPed -Q Querius

SA don’t bother, you are beating a dead horse, nothing rational can come from someone that can’t figure out a sex do to age. JVL is so up they, them, their, him, her, it’s own [] he can’t see how incoherent she really is. AaronS1978

JVL

Just walk away, stop trying to get your point across. You know it’s not going to make any difference.

If you believe you have the truth about something, then you should make your case. If you're not successful then try other arguments or try to understand your opposition's points better to see where the conflict lies. Silver Asiatic

AD

I don’t get your first sentence. What did I say about people here?

It didn't make any sense - no idea what relatd was talking about there. But very good points by you both on how we all must answer for our actions. Seversky has called this a fear-based approach. But has Sev and the other atheists here thought about a final judgement and recompense? Silver Asiatic

The "right to choose." Choose what? What are you choosing? I am choosing abortion. For what purpose? So I don't have the baby I'm pregnant with. And what happens to the baby? We don't talk about that. I say the following with sorrow. I was standing outside of an abortion clinic, praying. One day, I looked up and saw a young lady walk out with a bundle of beautiful flowers. I never spoke to anyone going in or coming out. There were two women in our group who offered them information packets that gave them an alternative to abortion. relatd

I don't get your first sentence. What did I say about people here? As for the rest, agree. No one seems to take seriously, the possibility that God is unchanging with the times, and his will, will be done. He has the last word. The famous line "Every knee shall bow and tongue confess..." That will include the unbelieving as well. He knows our every thought, and every day of our existence, before we ever came to be. His omniscience is not control. We still have the ability to choose. A woman's right to choose. The most ubiquitously uttered incomplete sentence in the entire abortion debate. They can't/won't say it, because they already know how the sentence ends. Further evidence that they will suppress the truth. Romans 1:19 No more important choice than to choose this day whom you will serve. Choose life. AnimatedDust

AD at 190, Try not to assume things about people here. I know someone who adopted foreign-born children. Those Catholics in high office are being watched by the Vatican. Fraternal correction is the first step, followed, in some cases, by denial of Communion. It can't be said often enough to the Liberals and Atheists here, you will be judged by God. It cannot be avoided. You still have time as God provides to turn from your sins and turn to Him. Hebrews 9:27 "And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment;" relatd

JH at 187, You are providing the usual propaganda. And, as usual, out of context and to serve your own purposes as well as other Leftists. 1950s. They were a lot better than today. A lot better. Since I saw what people were doing and how they behaved, I am an eyewitness. And since I was there for a good Catholic education, I was taught that sex was for marriage only, and most of us listened. It was not perfect but then, in the mid-1960s, strangers appeared in our neighborhoods. They told us to smoke dope. Which most of us did not want to do. We had no reason to. I heard, "You know you want to have sex with your girlfriend and live with her." Which is the exact opposite of what we were taught. Masturbation was wrong. These people were a bad influence and could be confrontational. Getting on Welfare suited some. I recall a corner store owner telling me how a young, otherwise healthy man asked him to cash a Welfare check for him. He refused, telling him to go to a bank. So, here's how it was. "I'm gonna live with my old lady. She's on welfare ya know." That was better? Living together without benefit of marriage? Smoking dope? But here's the part where the Key Issue is exposed - from the period: "You know what the problem is with you Catholics? All you do is listen to the Pope." Who should I listen to? You? Some total stranger? relatd

JH, did you realise the global numbers come from UN and Guttmacher etc, and the US numbers apart from being it seems unwelcome to some are not particularly controversial. KF kairosfocus

The one thing that stands out to me, that no one seems to give even a moment's pause on, is that one day each of us will be standing (or kneeling) before our creator, who will definitely have an opinion about abortion. From Pelosi, to Biden, and many, many others, they think they can have their cake and eat it too. I am betting that God is not pleased with those who kill the unborn, or those who support it, in thought, word, and deed. As a father of two adopted children, who are about to turn 21 and 22, the latter being a 24 week one pound six ounce micro-preemie, who is now a normally functioning adult, I am eternally grateful to their biological mothers for placing the needs of their children before their own. AnimatedDust

I am well aware that the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, in public used Christianity for political purposes, but in private he loathed it.

Hitler hated Judaism. But he loathed Christianity, too. “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.” per washington post https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/04/20/hitler-hated-judaism-he-loathed-christianity-too/?utm_term=.838977dd3110 "Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps it’s going too far to call them discussions, because he [Hitler] would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbor and your enemy. ‘Science isn’t yet clear about the origins of humanity,’ he once said. ‘We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind." - “Until the Final Hour” (subtitled “Hitler’s Last Secretary”), which is mainly based on the personal stories written by Traudl Junge soon after the end of WW2. Was Hitler a Christian? (Guest Dr. Richard Weikart) – video (Oct. 2016) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuJ3fqb7d4s

Of note:

Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes - Foundational Darwinian influence in their political ideologies March 2022 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/david-berlinski-the-bad-boy-philosopher-who-doubts-darwinism-is-back/#comment-749756 Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

bornagain77

Bornagain77 at 182, Careful with your examples, especially regarding World War II. Many people think they know but do not know the whole picture. I have seen hundreds of contemporary photos taken in Germany and German occupied territory, many of which are unpublished or recently published. German cemeteries, including those for soldiers, were marked with crosses. In one scene, a priest was present. Not everyone belonged to the Party. An anti-Russian propaganda poster showed Christ on the cross and had the words: "They do not believe this." In Russia, Atheism was the official State belief. When Polish General Anders was captured by Russian troops, he was later taken to Lubyanka Prison. This prison was actually a luxury hotel with carpet pile so thick it was said you could not hear men wearing boots walking nearby. On his way there, two Russian soldiers grabbed him and his Blessed Virgin Mary medal fell to the ground. They said: "Do you think that *itch is going to help you in there?" From his autobiography. Stalin and Mao killed more people than Hitler. I'm not saying Hitler did something good or better but killing millions of people was the order of the day. As far as Catholics in Germany, a meeting with Pope Pius XII led to the signing of a Konkordat to protect the rights of Catholics living in Germany. I have seen a photo of a German soldier standing guard at the entrance to the Vatican. Sometimes the Pope would call in high-ranking Nazi officials when he received reports of atrocities. He spoke fluent German. relatd

Relatd: According to who?

The same source that KF uses to get his abortion numbers.

I was there prior to 1973. Kids were told that family business was private. Divorce was rare. You did not talk about it, especially to other people that weren’t family.

Yes, I was around back then as well. Incest was never talked about. Pregnant teens were removed from school and sent to live with an “aunt”. A husband was legally allowed to hit his wife. Yup. The good old days.

LIAR !!!

Do some reading. The early fetus cannot perceive pain or think. The brain simply isn’t developed enough.

What? What happened to all the poor black women who can’t afford anything? Who don’t have jobs with maternity leave and who can barely afford another mouth to feed? You want other people to pay for someone else’s mistake or bad decision?

That statement tells it all. And not in your favour. JHolo

My moral values see nothing wrong with premarital sex between consenting adults

What is an adult? Specify any age and I can guarantee that people shy of that age will say “Why not me too?” jerry

Catholic charities anything Catholic actually relatd We have multiple programs go to your standard Catholic Church look it up on catholic answers or just catholic.com We’ve been doing this sort of thing for years and we survive off of donations AaronS1978

By the way this just in Democrats are making bills That mandate men to have a vasectomy in response to Roe VS Wade overturning Democrat response: they deserve it because we’re trying to dictate a woman’s body (that they can’t define) My response: cool let’s get all women’s tubes tied because that’s about the same, except it’s a little less reversible No one is saying you have to get pregnant if they were this type of stupidity might be justifiable but that’s not the case It’s the part where you got pregnant and now you want to kill it is the issue Once again Democrats completely misunderstanding pro life which isn’t a surprise AaronS1978

AS1978 at 169, "... actually sending money to programs that help reduce the need for abortion" Name just one such program. relatd

JHolo: "Who’s moral values? My moral values see nothing wrong with premarital sex between consenting adults. My moral values see nothing wrong with masturbation. My moral values see nothing wrong with homosexuality. My moral values see nothing wrong with the pill or the IUD." And as Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky observed: "If God does not exist, everything is permissible" - (The Brothers Karamazov; 1880) i.e. The insurmountable problem for Atheists in their rejection of God is that have no way of saying whether anything is morally right or wrong.

Somewhere in Eastern Europe, an SS officer watched languidly, his machine gun cradled, as an elderly and bearded Hasidic Jew laboriously dug what he knew to be his grave. Standing up straight, he addressed his executioner. “God is watching what you are doing,” he said. And then he was shot dead. What Hitler did not believe, and what Stalin did not believe, and what Mao did not believe, and what the SS did not believe, and what the Gestapo did not believe, and what the NKVD did not believe, and what the commissars, funcitonaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Pary theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Blackshirts, Gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe, was that God was watching what they were doing. And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put more accurately that to say: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this happened … if I were called upon to identify the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God… To the ill-considered hopes of the last two centuries, which have reduced us to insignificance and brought us to the brink of nuclear and non-nuclear death, we can propose only a determined quest for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently spurned!” https://www.diospi-suyana.de/fyodor-dostoievski-wenn-gott-nicht-existiert-ist-alles-zulaessig-2/?lang=en

bornagain77

“ But anybody who suggests that people don’t think about it because abortions are convenient is not female.“ This is objectively false AaronS1978

JH at 168, "If people are serious about reducing abortions, the US has to stop being the laughing stock of the western world with their embarrassingly inadequate paid maternity leave and job protection." What? What happened to all the poor black women who can't afford anything? Who don't have jobs with maternity leave and who can barely afford another mouth to feed? You want other people to pay for someone else's mistake or bad decision? relatd

JH at 168, Typical Leftist emphasis: "It is only a matter of time before a poor black women is charged with murder for having an abortion." You know this how? A wild guess? Some people want abortion to end. That's all. This is the part that NEVER gets mentioned, at least by the Liberal controlled media: "Ending abortion in half the states will make it less convenient for wealthy women, and their daughters, to get an abortion." The plan went like this: We want people to think that getting an abortion is no big deal. We'll just leave out mentioning that it leads to the death of a human being. relatd

JH at 168, So what? "The life of an unfeeling, unthinking mass of cells is more important than the life of a feeling , thinking person. " LIAR !!! Look at it. Click on the image to enlarge: https://www.3-dmed.com/product/fetal-development-model-set/ relatd

JH at 147, "Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967." According to who? I was there prior to 1973. Kids were told that family business was private. Divorce was rare. You did not talk about it, especially to other people that weren't family. And abortion? People who had money went to other countries or paid to send their daughters there. It was a scandal if anyone found out. And that was one of the selling points before 1973 - poor women need access to this. Another form of child sacrifice. relatd

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1540770916401291264 Lieutenant Commander Data

Aaron: The real cause of the reduction in abortion has been education, helping out single mothers out financially, and actually sending money to programs that help reduce the need for abortion.

Agreed. In addition to the availability of contraception.

Teaching responsibility, using contraceptives, instead of just willy-nilly having sex and then having an abortion because it’s just not convenient.

Comprehensive sex education teaches about consequences and responsibilities. Including that no means no. But anybody who suggests that people don’t think about it because abortions are convenient is not female.

Do you know what else reduces abortions teaching good moral standards and emphasizing the precious value of human life or life in general.

Who’s moral values? My moral values see nothing wrong with premarital sex between consenting adults. My moral values see nothing wrong with masturbation. My moral values see nothing wrong with homosexuality. My moral values see nothing wrong with the pill or the IUD. Would it surprise you to learn that the highest rate of teen pregnancies are in the Bible-belt states?

But the education part has been a huge contributor to the reduction of abortions.

Agreed. And it should be expanded on. Knowledge is power. Limiting knowledge is ignorance. JHolo

TR, it seems there is an attempt to return the court to its more modest role from having become a nine member monarchy ruling by decree. KF kairosfocus

What I don't get (speaking as a lawyer) is how the Supreme court can claim to be a judicial and not a political body. Many people are now crediting Trump with this outcome, due to him putting 3 conservative judges on the court. In key areas, (eg this decision, Bush v Gore, etc) the judges always vote in line with their political position (ie in line with the views of the president who appointed them). There is apparently no judicial independence. Quite perplexing to a foreign lawyer looking in. TimR

Seversky at 158 cites, "Landmark Report Concludes Abortion In U.S. Is Safe" Well first off, abortion is definitely unsafe for the unborn baby. Moreover, if a psychopath did to a baby what the abortion industry routinely does to unborn babies, he would be given the death sentence, and/or life in prison, (not to mention what fellow prisoners would do to him in prison), and the vast majority of people would wholeheartedly agree with that punishment.

Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A. Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018) https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf 100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,, https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/ Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand) https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100 Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

Secondly, although the mother, unlike the child, escapes physically unscathed from the abortion procedure, the long term mental, and/or moral, effects are another matter entirely.

A List of Major Psychological Effects of Abortion - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD or PAS),,, Sexual Dysfunction,,, - Suicidal Ideation and Suicide Attempts Approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland have identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records based study. They identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. The suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower at 5.9 per 100,000. Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage, the rate was 18.1 per 100,000, and for abortion the rate was 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women who carried to term, and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers.1,,, Increased Smoking with Corresponding Negative Health Effects,,, (Significantly increased) Alcohol and Drug Abuse,,, Eating Disorders,,, Child Abuse or Neglect,,, Divorce and Chronic Relationship Problems,,, Repeat Abortions,,, https://www.heartbeatinternational.org/pdf/Abortion-emotional_risks.pdf

Seversky, in you trying to present abortions as 'safe', you have clearly ignored the moral ramifications of abortion on the mother. Yet, as Sedgwick scolded Darwin, "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly."

From Adam Sedgwick - 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction? As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.,,, You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,, We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about?,,, There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,, in speculating upon organic descent, you over state the evidence of geology; & that you under state it while you are talking of the broken links of your natural pedigree:,,, Lastly then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter—not as a summary—for in that light it appears good—but I dislike it from the tone of triumphant confidence in which you appeal to the rising generation (in a tone I condemned in the author of the Vestiges),7 & prophesy of things not yet in the womb of time; nor, (if we are to trust the accumulated experience of human sense & the inferences of its logic) ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.— https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

Verse:

Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

bornagain77

By the way I would strongly suggest that you do not use Reductio ad absurdum to justify killing the unfeeling mass of cells, I can reduce you to a giant more complicated clump of cells and then reduce the idea of sensory to just neurochemical reactions in cells. You are literally that initial clump of cells at a different stage of life You hold no real value whatsoever over the initial clump of cells you started out as. You’re just a compilation of your environment, genes, and your body’s reactions to your environment as programed by evolution So you’re suffering is just as meaningless as the clump of cells you were planning to extinguish there is no need for me to entertain your value because it is subjectively yours and can be reduced as such to nothing So stating that something is a clump of cells doesn’t really justify baby murder, that clump of cells is a stage of your life and if I extinguish it you and your opinion go with it And let’s just get this stupid nonsense out of the way “masturbating is genocide” It absolutely is not, it is genetically 100% that person, no differently than the skin cells they possess. If forensics we’re trying to find a rapist and they had a sperm sample they wouldn’t be looking for millions of genetically unique individuals. They be looking for the person the sperm belongs to AaronS1978

Here's a question I keep hearing them say that when the Democrats had a supermajority they could have codified roe at any time so the question is, let's say that happened and then Mississippi passed this law and the Dobbs case came up couldn't have been rejected for the exact same reason as now what would it codification what difference would it make es58

JHolo Again I’m not arguing that, it’s still very much legal, I’m just pointing out the fact that everybody that’s freaking out about it is acting like they have had it stripped away from them The real cause of the reduction in abortion has been education, helping out single mothers out financially, and actually sending money to programs that help reduce the need for abortion Teaching responsibility, using contraceptives, instead of just willy-nilly having sex and then having an abortion because it’s just not convenient Do you know what else reduces abortions teaching good moral standards and emphasizing the precious value of human life or life in general But the education part has been a huge contributor to the reduction of abortions AaronS1978

There were fewer abortions in 2019 than there were before Roe. Does anybody seriously think that making abortions illegal will reduce the number of abortions? Those who can afford it will travel to obtain a safe abortion. And those who can’t will rely on unsafe underground abortions or self induced abortions. Obviously the proliferation here are only pseudo-pro-life. The life of an unfeeling, unthinking mass of cells is more important than the life of a feeling , thinking person. It is only a matter of time before a poor black women is charged with murder for having an abortion. If people are serious about reducing abortions, the US has to stop being the laughing stock of the western world with their embarrassingly inadequate paid maternity leave and job protection. JHolo

I can’t even take their arguments seriously because every one of them had to survive their baby murder right to even have their ridiculous opinions in the first place They exist only because someone else thought they where worth a damn enough to take care of them This is truly hypocritical to me AaronS1978

Absolutely not I’m just pointing the absurdity of the people who are arguing with us No form of baby murder is okay and I can’t emphasize more this is not about women’s rights ya know “woman” the thing JVL doesn’t have a clue what a woman is but is all about giving women baby murder rights But I digress, they are freaking out about something they very much can still do This shows that these psycho paths have an all or nothing, my way or the way, attitude towards baby murder The very idea that they lost but even the tiniest bit of ground has sent them flying and it’s truly laughable AaronS1978

AS1978 at 164, A form of child sacrifice is still "legal"? That makes it OK? relatd

Also need to emphasize this again baby murder is not illegal YOU CAN STILL DO IT it’s left to you and your state where it belongs AaronS1978

Like I said in a previous post Sev you DO NOT give a single [] about that woman with the infection You simply try to use it as a moral conundrum to back pro life into a comer and make them look like hypocrites Get off it you act like exceptions can’t be made for emergencies and you’re soulless manipulation of someone’s [] situation is trash now toss your example in the garbage where the rest of your baby murder logic belongs But blessed be to Darwin as long as your ilk continue on your path, your genes and ideology will eventually disappear AaronS1978

JVL huh what’s that? Are you confused again about what’s a female at 3 years (girl adolescent human female) 21 years woman (adult human female) you struggling again. Go away and keep pretending you have a point I know it helps with your Schizophrenia Sev mothers life is in danger they abort, this one off is a duh scenario but keep trying it doesn’t justify the current 20 million dead this year AaronS1978

JVL at 156, What kind of fantasy world are you trying to create? This is ALL about SCIENCE. Some people, including Christians, accept the lie that religious people are against this ONLY BECAUSE of their religious beliefs. That's one component, but the other is pure science. A human being dies in an abortion. Scientific fact. Do you expect the Leftists/Liberals who are parked here to stop the propaganda? Never. As in Never. relatd

Reality: there have been 63 million, about 25,000 of living posterity per week killed in Abortions in the US, under colour of law, in just under half a century. When we can see acknowledgement of that issue then we have a basis for a sound conversation. KF kairosfocus

JVL/156

Seversky and JHolo: Just walk away, stop trying to get your point across. You know it’s not going to make any difference. You know you’re not going to change anyone’s mind.

Most probably true on tactical grounds but not an argument for not exercising First Amendment rights. Seversky

Landmark Report Concludes Abortion In U.S. Is Safe […] Abortions in the United States are safe and have few complications, according to a landmark new study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. The report, called "The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States," examined the four major methods used for abortions — medication, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and induction — and examined women's care from before they had the procedure through their follow-up care. "I would say the main takeaway is that abortions that are provided in the United States are safe and effective," says Ned Calonge, the co-chair of the committee that wrote the study. He is an associate professor of family medicine and epidemiology at the University of Colorado and CEO of The Colorado Trust. Calonge says the researchers found that about 90 percent of all abortions happen in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. And complications for all abortions are "rare," the report says. But the report did find that state laws and regulations can interfere with safe abortions. "Abortion-specific regulations in many states create barriers to safe and effective care," the report says.

How Safe Is an Abortion as a Medical Procedure? What About At-Home Abortion? […] More than 600,000 abortions are performed each year in the United States. Many of the people who choose to end a pregnancy are already parents, and are neither financially nor physically able to raise another child. These parents are seeking options. But state abortion bans, transportation issues, childcare obligations, costs, and personal preference can make the choice to end pregnancy more than a little complicated. Often topping the concerns: What is safest? What the Data Says About Abortion Safety Overall, research shows abortion is a safe medical procedure. From 1998 to 2010, more than 16 million abortions occurred in the US, resulting in the deaths of 108 women, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That means less than 1 out of every 100,000 abortions leads to the pregnant person’s death. That number has been in decline. Overall, compared to childbirth, abortion is 14 times safer. (My emphasis)

Seversky

JVL, we deal here with justice, and with correcting the bloodiest single injustice in human history: 1.4 bilion innocent lives. That is of some significance, and needs to be reckoned with. KF kairosfocus

Seversky and JHolo: Just walk away, stop trying to get your point across. You know it's not going to make any difference. You know you're not going to change anyone's mind. This is not science. It's morals and ethics. And for the stalwarts here there is no grey area. And you're not going to convince them otherwise. Let it go. Have a nice walk with your spouse and/or dog. Watch a favourite film WITH popcorn. When the next local elections come to your area then spend a lot of time telling people what you think and why. But it's not worth it here. As far as I remember none of the usual ID proponents here has ever changed their mind about anything presented on this site. Don't keep tilting at windmills. JVL

It's not easy to make child sacrifice look like a virtue. It requires a lot of insanity to think that a crime is something wonderful. Lieutenant Commander Data

So how would pro-lifers approach this case?

Fears for US woman's life as abortion denied in Malta […] Andrea and Jay never thought they'd be in this situation: praying that their baby daughter's heart stops beating before Andrea develops a deadly infection. The couple, from the US, were on holiday in Malta when Andrea Prudente, who's 16-weeks pregnant, started losing blood. Doctors told her the placenta was partly detached and her pregnancy was no longer viable. But the baby's heart was still beating - and in Malta this means that by law doctors cannot end the pregnancy. For the past week, the couple have been stuck in a hospital room, waiting. "We're sitting here with the understanding that if she goes into labour, then the hospital will engage. If the baby's heart stops, they will help with that. Other than that, they won't do anything," Jay Weeldreyer tells me over the phone. His voice is tired and angry. He worries Andrea's condition could change rapidly at any time. "With the haemorrhaging and the separation of the placenta from the uterus, with the membrane fully ruptured and the baby's umbilical cord protruding through Andrea's cervix, she stands at an extraordinarily high risk of infection, all of which could be prevented," he says. "The baby can't live, there's nothing that can be done to change that. We wanted her, we still want her, we love her, we wish she could survive, but she won't. And not only are we in a spot when we're losing a daughter that we wanted, but the hospital is also prolonging Andrea's exposure to risk," he adds […] The island has some of the strictest laws in Europe when it comes to abortion: terminating a pregnancy is completely illegal, including when the foetus has no chances of survival.

I have the impression that Malta's policy is one that pro-lifers here would like to see adopted. In other words the only life the pro-lifers are "pro" is that of the fetus. The mother's right to life is of secondary concern. Seversky

JH at 147, Does a human being die when an abortion occurs? Yes or no? An observation: The Liberal controlled news media pointed out that most states that are banning or plan to severely restrict abortion are in the The Bible Belt. Why is there no mention of the pro-abortion Liberal Belt? They can draw attention to one group but not the other? relatd

JH, ad hom projection. I do not have to reply explicitly to every point for the matter to be obvious. To object to one form of taking of innocent life does not translate to supporting reckless behaviour that puts another life at needless risk while trying to take innocent life. KF PS, you also obviously fail to note that changed behaviour is indicated, that promiscuity [usually serial] now exposes one to every sex partner the others in the chain have had for a decade, that I do not object to contraceptives that do not induce silent, early abortions, and that we face a crisis of dozens of STDs. If we could educate our way out of smoking, it is obvious that a long list of other things should be so targetted, rum, ganja, coke, fentanyl, promiscuity and other forms of self destructive or needlessly risky behaviour. But then, my late mom was a key officer of the local bureau of health education. PPS, kindly show us a nine sided hexagon. kairosfocus

The death rate of all abortions is close to 100%. ET

@wait wait ET here We need the death rate of legal abortions and here you go https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/ AaronS1978

Death rate of illegal abortions? Maybe women will start thinking before having sex. ET

Here is a passage from 2 Kings 24:3-4 describing the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem a very long time ago: "Surely at the commandment of the LORD came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did; And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon." May God have mercy on us. Blastus

KF@141, I notice that you did not respond to my comment about the maternal death rate caused by illegal abortions. It appears that you are willing to trade the trade the deaths of masses of unfeeling, unthinking human cells for the deaths of feeling, thinking human beings. The fact is that making abortion illegal does not prevent them.

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

That is more 30% higher than the number of abortions in 2019. And that was back when the US population was less than 200,000,000. In all of your words, you have not proposed a concrete means to actually prevent unwanted pregnancies and the demand for abortion. But your wish to make abortions illegal will make criminals of countless women, and result in deaths and suffering for many. JHolo

JHolo:

Yet many other countries have access to abortion on demand without the mass shootings and school shootings.

So what? Take a close look at those other countries. Mostly sheep. ET

It isn't an insult. It is an observation. You don't have an argument. School and other mass shootings occur because humans have developed a total disregard for (human) life. And that starts with the senseless mass slaughter of society’s most vulnerable. We are discussing guns and abortions with complete hypocrites. To be pro-abortion and anti-gun is being a total hypocrite. ET

ET: JHolo doesn’t know what logic is.

Is an insult the best counter-argument you have? I guess when you have no salient counter-argument, an insult is all that is left. JHolo

Hickson at 33: "Sixty million orphans." Here are two German terms: 1. "Lebensunwertes Leben" - life unworthy of life 2. "nutzloser Esser" - useless eater Those terms were used by those who argued that certain lives were an unnecessary burden on society. Blastus

Paxx: No such thing as “transgender”

Regardless of all observation, science and biology. How do you explain that the brain structure and activity of the transgendered more closely resembles the sex they identify as than the sex of their birth? JHolo

JH, the logic of undermining of life worked out in other ways, the Nazi Holocaust, the Communist democide AND the worst of all, 1.4 billion victims of mass abortion flow from the same failure. In these cases the criminal guns were in the hands of the state and its agents were the mass murderers. We can add following Schaeffer and Koop, infanticide and euthanasia. The tie in with eugenics and social darwinism should not be overlooked, too. KF kairosfocus

JHolo doesn't know what logic is. ET

ET: School and other mass shootings occur because humans have developed a total disregard for (human) life. And that starts with the senseless mass slaughter of society’s most vulnerable

Yet many other countries have access to abortion on demand without the mass shootings and school shootings. Your logic is non-existent. JHolo

School and other mass shootings occur because humans have developed a total disregard for (human) life. And that starts with the senseless mass slaughter of society's most vulnerable. We are discussing guns and abortions with complete hypocrites. To be pro-abortion and anti-gun is being a total hypocrite. ET

Yes, Fred. the central issue is that you don't care about science nor reality. ET

F/N3: Unsurprisingly, we find these thoughts deeply echoed and endorsed in that foundational anthology for our civilisation, the Bible. Unsurprising, as self evident, first principle, branch on which we sit first truths, first duties and first law would tend to be fairly readily recognisable for one who is open to ponder such matters. So, Paul of Tarsus clearly reflects the received consensus summarised by a certain X = MTC . . . there are some hereabouts that seem to be allergic to the spelled out name. But before we go there, here is Luke (a serious historian) reporting Festus' reply to the Judaean elites who wanted Paul simply handed over to their power:

Ac 25:. 16 I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him.

We can call that an entrenched custom or tradition of governance expressing a jurisprudential principle, of force of law, that one has rights through duty of the state and its officers to justice. Here, a right to a hearing in which one confronts accusers on specific recognised charges tied to a body of acknowledged civil law. Which, in turn, rests on the priority of the civil peace of justice, taking us right back to the seven first duties of -- shudder -- MTC. Of course, the elaboration of a state framework of law and government is precisely why there is an etc in the list, we here outline the root, the rest grows organically therefrom. (And no, this is not mere repetition of things said over and over, this is the first time I am drawing this out explicitly.) We turn to the person Felix protected from judicial murder, Paul. Just two years before this, he had written to Christians in Rome, in a foundational work of theology that has affected the course of civilisation:

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the [Mosaic] law [code], by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Here we see the concept of a built in law of our morally governed, conscience guided nature, with thoughts in conflict leading to an internal trial, and of the duty of neighbour love being at the heart. Indeed, this is how the core law found in the decalogue turns out to be written in our hearts. A base is being laid for the Christian synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome. This synthesis formed our civilisation as we know it. Underneath, of course, lie the river valley civilisations and the heritage of the wider fertile crescent. We can see this in Justinian's Institutes, the built in textbook for the Christianised synthesis of Roman Law led by Tribonian that is the foundation of Continental Law, Corpus Juris Civilis. This includes, the derivative Napoleonic Code. In Anglophone jurisprudence, it is no accident that Alfred the Great and his Witans began The Book of Dooms with when God was speaking to Moise this is what he said, paraphrasing the Decalogue. Yes, the Common Law system literally begins from the ten commandments. Those who foam at the mouth and attack the decalogue and its display reflect anticivilisational ignorance. So, we have a framework. One, which obviously extends to the right to life. KF kairosfocus

F/N2: As a start point, I wish to highlight what we can discern as core, built in first duties and first law, pivoting on the three points that

a: untruth is the foundation of injustice [ask the ghost of brutally and cruelly judicially murdered Milada Horakova], that b: we are neighbours with a common nature and mutuality, and that c: the civil peace of justice is best understood as due balance of rights, freedoms and duties, drawing out that mutuality.

I think objectors will have a hard time dismissing these three theses, without revealing contempt for blatant and sometimes painful facts of history, without showing themselves evasive, inconsistent/incoherent and/or otherwise irrational, without showing themselves misanthropic, without showing themselves anticivilisational. Let us simply bring up a list of first duties that is in an order reflecting a, b, c just above, for the moment setting aside its foundational roots in our civilisation's history of ideas [yes, one certain M____ T______ C_______, shh, don't let heads explode . . . ]. Namely, duties:

1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.

If you object, why, and why should we take you seriously? Apart from, oh we are duty bound to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, ought not to mislead neighbour, and should be fair and just? If you think, oh something deeper must warrant them, prove it, then what is the request for proof but a manifestation of said call to first duties? Indeed, as Epictetus showed for right reason [key to warrant and to prudence, so to knowledge], the attempt to prove already uses these principles. Epictetus:

DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. We here see the first principles of right reason in action. Cf J. C. Wright]

Of course, what we are seeing here is the reality of some things that have been marginalised and which are cases of willfully disappeared knowledge in our civilisation: branch on which we all sit, pervasive first principles that are self evident from the absurdity of having to appeal to them to give one's objection any persuasive traction. The late, great Dallas Willard highlighted a particularly pernicious case, the disappearance of moral knowledge; which may be energising a strong feeling to dismiss the above without further consideration. Yes, crooked yardsticks confused for sound first principles have that effect. What is truly straight, accurate, upright can never conform to crookedness. And that includes a naturally straight and upright plumb line. So, are we dismissing plumb lines? How wise is that? KF PS, On objectivity of moral knowledge, a little algebraic analysis might help:

Objective moral truth is widely denied in our day, for many it isn't even a remotely plausible possibility. And yet, as we will shortly see, it is undeniably true. This marginalisation of moral knowledge, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity. Let a proposition be represented by x M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [--> truth claim] O = x is objective and generally knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [--> notice, generally knowable per adequate warrant, as opposed to widely acknowledged] It is claimed, cultural relativism thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1

[ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: "[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc -- c 430 BC on, hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made." This IMPLIES the Cultural Relativism Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. Of course, subjectivism then reduces the scale of "community" to one individual. He continues, "These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . " [--> door opened to nihilistic factionalism]]

However, the subject of S is M, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O, and is about M where it forbids O-status to any claim of type-M so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [--> reductio ad absurdum] ++++++++++ ~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*M = 1 [condensing not of not] where, M [moral truth claim] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] That is, there UNDENIABLY are objective moral truths; and a first, self-evident one is that ~[O*M] is false. The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important.

PPS, maybe we will now be more open to reconsider what was so ill advisedly mocked earlier on here at UD:

We may readily identify at least seven branch- on- which- we- all- sit (so, inescapable, pervasive), readily knowable first principle . . .

first duties of reason and first universally binding laws written into our rational, responsible nature and forming morally driven governing principles of reason, high and low alike:

"Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to and pervasive in our reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,

1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.

Likewise, we observe again, that the objector to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.

It is time for reformation, so back to roots. kairosfocus

F/N: At the heart of the exchanges and evasions above, and of the issues lurking behind the decision, is the isue of justice, so too of rights, freedoms and duties. Where, we are inherently social, rational, morally governed anima-ls [I emphasise here the soul issue in the name] in two compatible sexes tied to the reproduction and thriving of our common human race. This requires clarification, i/l/o the centrality of the civil peace of justice. Justice, being best understood as due balance of rights, freedoms, duties, with life, liberty, innocent reputation [key to social survival], property etc as foci for rights. This means that our claims to autonomy, freedom, rights, etc must be restrained by the needs of mutual compatibility. I cannot justly claim a freedom or right that unduly infringes on rights or freedoms of others, or would force them to cooperate in and enable evil. As Vivid noted above, forcing people to habitually lie in support of demands of activism is a case in point of exceeding this issue. Similarly, we must reject nominalism, by asking for a demoinstration of a nine sided hexagon. Where, polygonality is an abstract universal, and so are six-ness, three-ness and nine-ness. (I cite here to demonstrate by a clear and even "extreme" case that the rejection of abstracta and/or of universals is ill founded in logic of being. That extends to cases where borders may be fuzzy or there may be failure of proper function in forming an entity, etc.) In the case in the OP, the USSC actually recognised that the prior cases Roe and Casey were improperly decided and restored status quo ante. However, after nearly 50 years of state enabled mass blood guilt of 63 million victims, thinking will be profoundly warped and a serious work of correction is needed. As well as one of finding repentance, forgiveness and healing. I have suggested a truth, reconciliation and reformation commission, but that is the least likely approach, given the polarisation at work. At least, we need to know there was a more prudent way, an opportunity foregone. Now, as to the way forward, I believe we must restore a sounder foundation for moral government, for moral thought and knowledge [yes, KNOWLEDGE, there are knowable moral truths forming a framework for life, community, law and government, through the civil peace of justice], thence for the state, law, government, public policy and public morality as an aspect of culture. These will not be easy, and many are too angry and polarised to pay significant attention, but the issues remain. KF kairosfocus

100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,, https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/ Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand) https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100 Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A. Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018) https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

Of supplemental note:

Busting the Left’s Vapid Abortion Talking Points - May 2022 https://amac.us/busting-the-lefts-vapid-abortion-talking-points/?campaign=daily-news-email

bornagain77

@Querius I've addressed UB in that thread. If UB has more to say, I'll respond. You don't appear to grasp the central issue. Thanks for derailing this thread, though, it needed it. Fred Hickson

Fred Hickson @79, Baloney. Upright Biped posted the following on that thread:

704 Upright BiPedJune 25, 2022 at 11:30 am . … returning from a short vacation. I’ve read through the comments. It appears it might be a good time for a quick summary. Fred issued a challenge where he was to “propose the steps that could have taken RNA world to DNA-protein world” … or more succinctly, the steps from dynamics to descriptions. I entered his challenge by asking two general questions. The first was about the design inference and the second was about the transition from his proposed dynamic replicator to the actual description-based replicator. The point of the first question was to demonstrate whether or not Fred was intellectually willing to acknowledge the substance (documented uncontroversial facts) of the position he was arguing against. The point of the second question was to demonstrate if Fred was prepared to address the actual physical system he was required to explain. Fred answered the first question by sharply denying that SETI would infer an intelligent source if it received a signal from space that contained encoded content. His reasoning behind that answer was that SETI hasn’t received any signals yet. That answer is not only logically incoherent, it is transparently evasive. Yet he stands by it. Fred then answered the second question with an equally incoherent answer. The question is simple: an aaRS is a complex protein that serves a critical function — it performs a double recognition of a particular tRNA and a particular amino acid. It then binds them together, thus establishing the genetic code. The entire gene system ceases to function without the aaRS. They are synthesized (specified) from genetic memory, and it stands to reason that there was once a very first time that this synthesis ever occurred. The question was specifically this: regardless of what anyone might believe occurred prior to that point in earth’s history; when the first ever aaRS was synthesized from memory and went on to serve its critical function, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place? Clearly, the question was intended to focus the discussion not on the speculated (unknown and undemonstrated) first ramblings of RNA replicators on a prebiotic earth, but on the actual steps involved in the transition from dynamics to descriptions (i.e. the actual core topic of Fred’s challenge). Fred’s eventual answer to this question was “One”. This is yet another completely incoherent answer. An aaRS made up of “one” amino acid cannot perform its function. No one would even suggest a thing. His answer is another transparent evasion. Fred has no intentions of addressing the documented physical requirements of the system he is attempting to explain. So now to Fred’s actual challenge, i.e. the transition from his speculated dynamic RNA replicator to the actual DNA/protein (description-based) replicator found in living things: It has been established by experiment (now over a sixty years ago) that the cell does not determine which amino acid is presented for binding in the ribosome based on the dynamic physical properties of the RNA triplet used as a messenger for that amino acid. The RNA is used only as a token of memory, requiring an interpretive constraint in order to function as it does. Full stop. The capacity of the gene system — to specify something among alternatives — is not based on a dynamic association between the amino acid and the messenger. It is a discontinuous association, which functions by not having that physical limitation. This enables the use of a code, which in turn enables the system to have the informational capacity to describe itself in a transcribable memory, making life (autonomous open-ended self-replication) possible. Physically, one of these processes is rate-dependent and reversible, the other is rate-independent and non-reversible. They are obviously not the same thing. Fred has stated that his goal in this challenge is to describe the evidence-based steps to get from the former to the latter. Thus far he hasn’t even acknowledged the distinction, much less provided any steps. Repeating over and over that his explanation begins by assuming the existence of a self-replicating RNA isn’t going to do the job he has set out for himself, even though that does appear to be the full extent of his explanation. Fred’s challenge ends with a blatant evasion on question 1, a blatant evasion on question 2, followed by an (evidence-free) argument-by-assertion on the challenge itself. The actual substance of the challenge was never even addressed. Indeed, he tells us twice that he has no idea how aaRS came into being in his RNA world. This is something he knew before he even issued the challenge. Fred’s goal here was never to explain the steps from dynamics to description. He is here to dance around the science and tread water long enough to get in another round of passive insults and mockery. The question “why” certainly comes to mind. People do what profits them.

All you did there was evasion . . . so the challenge is still there for all to see and your promise to address Upright Biped's specific points remain unaddressed by you: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-gunter-bechly-repudiates-professor-daves-attacks-against-id/#comment-759110:~:text=from%20the%20start.-,644,-Upright%20BiPed -Q Querius

Trumper “so what is the root cause of the choice” Worldview, it’s post modernism in all its glory. To quote Richard Yorty “Truth is made not found”. Vivid vividbleau

Paxx “No such thing as “transgender”” Spot on, those who control the language control thought. Notice I never use that term. Once you use that term you have given the store away. Vivid vividbleau

No such thing as "transgender" Paxx

Vivid- agreed....all should be treated with respect (or with meds in some cases..ha). If a man wants to ignore science and drag-queen himself to looking like a gal... so be it.. that's his choice. or a woman who somehow feels she woke up as a dude.... so be it. those two souls also have to admit to the absurdity of the soul that believes they identify as a wolf (yes there are many out there).. but in no sense are they anything close to a wolf... or those that try their best to identify as a dragon...or other mythical creature... sad that they are degrading their human potential. But back to the fakers of identity shape shifters, why? feel good-ness?..... mental trauma?.....emotional trauma as a child? ... inept adult guidance?..... why? it's not a factual position that one can scientifically defend so what is the root cause of the choice. Trumper

Life Wins - End of story. Trumper

Golden rule should be applied to abortionists too. If you accept crime on others without punishment then you accept same privilege to be performed on you. Lieutenant Commander Data

JVL, long since, we have discussed malfunctions vs proper function. One must here treat with compassion but must not allow that to cloud understanding of proper function. You are embarked on a key error. KF kairosfocus

Buck v. Bell is a Supreme Court decision, never overruled; it permitted compulsory sterilization of the unfit; “unfitness” lay in the opinion of the state. The majority opinion in Roe referred to it as a precedent expressing obliquely a vague hope that their Roe decision would not lead to compulsory abortion because of the ‘privacy’ rights recently discovered to be lying in the shadowlands of the constitution. Buck v Bell is still the law. With Roe overturned, the incoherent ruling in Roe that abortion is not limitless loses weight, and compulsory abortion - at least for the “unfit” - is available for abortion enthusiasts in States like California to pass such a law. Tell us, J Holo, if made compulsory in California would your company pay for the legal defence of a pregnant woman who wanted to keep her baby? Would you? Don’t bother to mention the Supremes, in Skinner, wouldn't allow involuntary sterilisation of ‘unfit’ criminals; they didn’t overrule Buck v Bell. Belfast

Jholo “You reject that homosexuality exists? That transgendered people exist? Well, then you are living in a delusion. Homosexuals and those who identify as the gender opposite their biological sex have existed for as long as we have had recorded history. That is neither leftist nor rightist. It is just fact.” What kind of fever dream is this? Who has denied the existence of homosexuals or men who think they women or women who think they are men? Who exactly? “Or you can try to understand them and accommodate them within society.” All people should be treated with respect. Let me tell you what is not respectful, requiring me to embrace and affirm a lie when it comes to men who think they are women or women that think they are a man when they are not. Thinking so does not make it so. Just. because they deny reality as do you does not require me to affirm the lie. Vivid vividbleau

Jvl, >>> “Oh, and before you answer…” Are you suggesting that people seeking trans or non-binary status be limited to those with these actual conditions? OhReally

JH at 118, I reject your Leftist rhetoric, and the "new" terminology of victimhood invented in a vain attempt to create bad guys. I knew since the 1960s that homosexuality existed, but you, and others who share your views, make it sound like not "recognizing" that LGBT people "exist" is some new idea. It's not. It's just a new way to add a layer of victimhood and an attempt to intimidate others. I have an acquaintance who went through the procedure and now presents as a woman. He's not. And your purely Leftist comments to create bad guys again. >>> NO <<<< LGBT person needs my permission to do what they want. Do you understand? Because if you say no, then the victim v. Bad Guy scenario must continue. That is clearly the current approach. And please stop with the Leftist concept of ATTACHMENT. "Like was done for blacks, asians, indigenous peoples and women for a huge chunk of US history. Or you can try to understand them..." My first girlfriend in college was Native American. I have a friend who is engaged to an Asian woman. You think you are justified in throwing your rhetoric at someone you don't know and never met and ASSUMING that I believe any of the things you wrote. I have friends who are black. But in the Leftist world, everything is exactly the way you paint it. I must be one of those bad guys. Based on what? Your assumptions? That's what's wrong with Leftists - they have this very black and white view of who the enemy is. I'm seeing the same rhetoric on a message board where I'm a moderator. relatd

In the current situation regarding abortion, both sides can't be right. One side has truth, evidence and facts. The other side does not. Human life begins at conception. The moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new human being is created. "In biology, the beginning of pregnancy, marked by fertilization of an egg by a sperm." The women will experience 'morning sickness.' "nausea in pregnancy, typically occurring in the first few months. Despite its name, the nausea can affect pregnant women at any time of day." "The heart of an embryo starts to beat from around 5–6 weeks of pregnancy." In the early days, some abortion providers would refer to what was removed as a 'blob of tissue' or say 'It looked nothing like a baby.' In Michigan, a pro-life woman found abortion remains in a dumpster behind a clinic. The remains were referred to as "medical waste." Before the 1973 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize abortion, those promoting abortion lied to the American people and the press. A co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws said as much. Doctor Bernard Nathanson realized that babies were being aborted. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55401/an-ex-abortionist-speaks I believe the Supreme Court acted properly and there is sufficient evidence to support their decision. relatd

Relatd: I reject your Leftist, or Leftist inspired rhetoric. It’s wrong on many levels.

You reject that homosexuality exists? That transgendered people exist? Well, then you are living in a delusion. Homosexuals and those who identify as the gender opposite their biological sex have existed for as long as we have had recorded history. That is neither leftist nor rightist. It is just fact. You have a few options. You can bury your head in the sand, pretending they don’t exist. You can acknowledge that they exist and pass laws to persecute them and to exclude them from participating equally in society. Like was done for blacks, asians, indigenous peoples and women for a huge chunk of US history. Or you can try to understand them and accommodate them within society. I choose the latter. As do all sensible people. JHolo

Aaron Well done.!! JVL thinks questions are answers. I guess that’s better than his incessant whining all the time about his posts being censored which only exists in his mind or faulty computer. Vivid vividbleau

JH at 109, I reject your Leftist, or Leftist inspired rhetoric. It's wrong on many levels. relatd

Oh I know I’m not gonna get a rational conversation out of them :) I’m literally doing this on purpose because I find it entertaining AaronS1978

You're never going to get a rational conversation from a pro-abort. Peddling the death of innocents destroys your mind. Andrew asauber

And what about those people that have both organs or have no organs because that’s a genetic defect why does your splitting a hair actually trump 7.2 billion other people yes hermaphrodites are a real thing they both have sex organs (Funny I knew what they were called and you didn’t) But often they lean towards one sex or the other And if they can’t reproduce they can’t reproduce it’s a one off situation that shouldn’t define every single instance there after But in your world like abortion it should and I don’t care to play in your world And take a little bit of your own advice the only truth that you believe in is your own and you’re telling me that my truth is not good enough I’m sorry you’re a hypocrite and that’s why I can’t take you seriously and I never will but please continue AaronS1978

Lol do you really take your self seriously You honestly brought up ZERO and I mean ZERO examples that can’t be easily addressed by the the two definitions I posted It is laughable to see you split hairs and create strawmen in your sad little attempt to create some REAL world concern you deal with your delusional little internal world What’s truly disgraceful is you parading around as an intellectual tangled in your own word garbage attempting to make it seem like no one understands the sophistication of real life like you do The problem is is when I read everything that you’re trying to state I just see somebody has mental issues There are real world biological attributes of both female and male and they are real and you can probably reach into your pants and touch them, if that is not real enough for you and you have to over complicated things, that’s not my issue that’s yours and I’m sorry that’s not my job to figure out you mental conundrums. And the fact that you think your definitions of reality trumps all other show that you are both a hypocrite and a Sociopath Yes its simplistic it’s called Ochman’s razor for a reason now get over it and start slowly drifting back to reality it will be helpful for everyone AaronS1978

AaronS1978: Watching you babble entertains me. Literally both definitions I googled answer everything you are attempting to over complicate Right, so you can't address the real world examples I brought up. You can't even say when someone becomes an adult. You can't admit that a 'woman' means different things in different times and different places. Your snickering, superior, simplistic view of the real world and what some estimates put at over 7 million human beings is shocking and disgraceful. For someone who professes to believe that one should love your neighbour as yourself but can't even see their neighbours for what they really are you should be ashamed. But you're not because you are so sure you are right that you think you can disregard and dismiss any data or evidence that disputes or even puts into question your beliefs. Cleary you are not interested in science; you only see what you want to see. And if you're not interested in actual data or evidence then are you really interested in truth? Or just your version of it? No they really do actually, it’s pretty damn cut and dry unless you like ignoring those very obvious physical biological organs produced by those very real genes What about the people who don't have those organs? They exist you know. Or are you going to deny that as well? You guys can't define "woman" despite thinking you can because you can't deal with the existing, documented, studied human beings who don't fit into your simplistic model. JVL

No they really do actually, it’s pretty damn cut and dry unless you like ignoring those very obvious physical biological organs produced by those very real genes But please continue your gender circus from my understanding of the left there is technically around 742 different genders all developed from the word garbage you believe trumps biological form AaronS1978

Or perhaps just accept that not everyone falls into your black and white definition of gender or sexual attraction. JHolo

Watching you babble entertains me Literally both definitions I googled answer everything you are attempting to over complicate Please continue though AaronS1978

AaronS1978: But KF took the time to explain it to you again Does that mean, like Kairosfocus you failed to address all the documented genetic and developmental conditions which fall outside of your strict XY or XX categories? Does that mean you accept not being able to determine if literally millions of humans are male or female because they don't match your simplistic scenario? Does that mean that you will categorise everyone strictly based on their genetic profile even if they have no ability to create or bear children? Even if they have no womb or penis? Does that mean that you are unable to accept that the concept of an adult varies from time to time and culture to culture? Does that mean that you completely disregard any and all legal definitions of what an adult is? When do you think someone becomes an adult? At 18-years of age? Why? At 21? Why? At the onset of puberty? At the end of puberty? When they are capable of creating children? So when boys are . . . 10-years old and can produce sperm they are adults? Perhaps you'd like to consider dealing with the real world instead of just some idealised and simplistic model. JVL

Bill Maher, of all people, questions transgender ideology,,

New Rule: Along for the Pride | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMBzfUj5zsg

of note:

What is a Woman? (2022) Trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqBguWbia_o

bornagain77

JVL Lol yes, uhm curious do you have reading comprehension problems? I mean my original post answered your attempted and failed word dance with out any need of further explanation But KF took the time to explain it to you again AaronS1978

Vividbleau: NO!!! All you do is ask questions and when you are asked a question all you do is ask more questions. You have not given me anything to compare and contrast . When you answer me I will reciprocate. Clearly i'm indicating that i think the answer depends on the cultural, legal, biological and emotional contexts. It should be easier for you to answer since you seem to think things are a lot more black and white. Oh, and before you answer make sure your answer addresses individuals with Klinefelter syndrome which means having XXY chromosomes, those with Jacobs syndrome which means having XYY chromosomes, those with XXYY chromosomes, those with Ovotesticular disorder of sex development, those with Turner syndrome which means only having one X or only one complete X chromosomes and a whole bunch of other documented and studied genetic and developmental conditions. JVL

VB: This idiot understands basic economics the cost for an abortion is minuscule compared to 18 months paid leave. Does your company give 18 months paid paternity leave to women who have an abortion?

No. But we do give them six weeks paid leave and cover the cost of counselling, if they want it. And our health coverage covers the cost of the pill, the morning after pill, and an IUD. AND $500 annual allowance that is intended for condoms but, admittedly, we have no idea if this is what it is actually used for. JHolo

JVL, we know, we know, anything but the substance. A woman is an adult female human being, ours being a species that uses the XY sex determination system. A young female, in English, is called a girl, and beyond that we speak of a baby girl. Destroying the life of a baby girl in the womb is destroying the life of one of our living posterity. In some countries this is done for sex selection purposes, cumulatively skewing population ratios. KF kairosfocus

JVL “Why don’t you give us your definition of ‘woman’ so we can compare and contrast”. NO!!! All you do is ask questions and when you are asked a question all you do is ask more questions. You have not given me anything to compare and contrast . When you answer me I will reciprocate. Vivid vividbleau

AaronS1978: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, So you think it's all about potential? So any XX chromosome human is a 'woman' even when they are 3-years old? JVL

I notice, the ongoing sidestepping of the core issue that Roe v Wade was in fact ill founded as a legal matter [a view shared apparently by Ms Ginzberg], and instead distractors such as ad hominems. Telling, in the end. KF kairosfocus

Vividbleau: More pretzels please, What is a young woman? What is an old woman? Would you call an 8-month old XX foetus in the womb a 'woman'? Would you allow an 11-year old human female to marry because she is a 'young woman'? My mother thought a female human became a 'woman' on the event of her first menstruation. Do you agree or disagree with that? Generally a 'woman' is an adult human female but 'adult' has different definitions depending on when and where you ask. This is big news!! Which cultures do not have women? The point is that legally woman, as opposed to 'girls' or 'children' have been defined differently in different cultures. The typical splitting point is the age of legal maturity. Why don't you give us your definition of 'woman' so we can compare and contrast. JVL

Oxford definition woman adult human female Oxford definition for female Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biology by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by make gametes Super easy Google search AaronS1978

JVL “For instance: most people nowadays would not call a 12-year old girl a woman even if they have two X chromosomes” More pretzels please, What is a young woman? What is an old woman? What is a middle aged woman? “A cultural definition? Which culture? This is big news!! Which cultures do not have women? Vivid vividbleau

Bornagain77: it turns out that answering the simple question of “What is a woman?” is an impossible task for the far left. It's interesting that you should pick the term 'woman' instead of 'female' as 'woman' already has some conditional and situational aspects. For instance: most people nowadays would not call a 12-year old girl a woman even if they have two X chromosomes. But the 'answer' would depend on when and where you asked the question. So, when you ask: what is a woman? it seems to me you need to specify your context. Are you asking for a legal definition? Which legal system? A cultural definition? Which culture? A biological definition? Which species? An emotional definition? Whose emotions? JVL

B77 “Well actually, because on their radical position on transgenderism, (which holds that anyone can be a woman simply by wanting to be a woman), it turns out that answering the simple question of “What is a woman?” is an impossible task for the far left.” Which has been repeatedly demonstrated on previous threads. It is funny to see these people get pretzel twisted. Honestly the left has embraced insanity and live in a make believe world. vividbleau

FH “What’s absurd is the political charade that masquerades as a hearing” Nice dodge. What’s absurd is your position that if she did answer the question she would not have been confirmed. Vivid vividbleau

Vivid: "How about a SC Justice that does not know something as simple as what a women [sic] is!" Fred Hickson: "She learned from previous nominee hearings about not answering questions. " Well actually Fred, because on their radical position on transgenderism, (which holds that anyone can be a woman simply by wanting to be a woman), it turns out that answering the simple question of "What is a woman?" is an impossible task for the far left. Matt Walsh made an entire documentary out of asking that simple question, "What is a woman?" and watching the far left twist in the wind trying to answer it.

Matt Walsh Revisits His 'What Is A Woman' Interview With Dr. Forcier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdDB8wU73NA

bornagain77

@ 89 That’s a two street but I’m sure you had no problem with Biden’s “I can’t define a female” nominee AaronS1978

FH If you have a SC Justice that does not know what a woman is then how the heck will she be able to adjudicate on cases that affect women? Oh I forgot evidently it takes a biologist to know that. Vivid vividbleau

Oh my you seem to be saying she did this because if she answered the question she would not have been confirmed? If so that’s absurd.

What's absurd is the political charade that masquerades as a hearing to assess a candidate's ability as a member of the US Supreme Court. Candidates should advance on ability, not via a political circus. Fred Hickson

“She learned from previous nominee hearings about not answering questions” Oh my you seem to be saying she did this because if she answered the question she would not have been confirmed? If so that’s absurd. Vivid vividbleau

OMG ,ROTFL! You want to talk about a person who is unqualified? How about a SC Justice that does not know something as simple as what a women [sic] is!

She learned from previous nominee hearings about not answering questions. Kavanaugh and Barrett didn't lie out loud about their intention to overturn Roe vs Wade, they just didn't answer. Fred Hickson

Jholo “And before any idiot claims that we are doing this for a selfish profit based reason, we also offer 18 month fully paid paternal leave” This idiot understands basic economics the cost for an abortion is minuscule compared to 18 months paid leave. Does your company give 18 months paid paternity leave to women who have an abortion? Vivid vividbleau

FH “And if you compare the qualifications of the appointee in waiting with those of Amy Coney Barrett it is starkly illustrative of Barrett’s illegitimate position.” OMG ,ROTFL! You want to talk about a person who is unqualified? How about a SC Justice that does not know something as simple as what a women is! Vivid vividbleau

It amazes me that these crazy Christian nationalists waited quietly and peacefully for 50 years to make their insidious move but it only took the party of science and logic “DEMcrats” a minute to burst out into violent protests and assassination attempts on the justices that voted to overturn roe vs wade AaronS1978

FH, >The creator designed that lust, desire, trust in women and deceit in men too, I guess. Why, I wonder. You haven't been paying any attention to anything we said here, have you? Do you really not know our explanation of that by now? It would sure be nice if you would actually engage us at the level the rest of us are operating at... JVL, Thanks for agreeing with me that any attempt to dismantle something as entrenched as abortion is going to create a mess of other moral issues. >Does that mean you can sue a rapist for child support? You know, THAT is actually not a bad idea! You may have a winner there! I actually like your idea! In closing, may I suggest that the US take this opportunity to switch the red/blue distinctions, and have Red Cities be those where abortion is available? It will be easier to keep things straight that way. (/sarcasm) EDTA

@ 71 Rape, incest, mothers life in danger, and birth defects are all smoke screens Pro baby murders can do math. ALL of these instances combine equal about a percent of the average 32 million abortions that take place each year They just try to back you into a moral conundrum because they know you have morals so they figured they corner you with it in the attempt to make you look like a hypocrite They’ll even say stupid shit like “you’re a pro rape then” Reality is the numbers say something entirely different and the only thing they really do care about is population control Because that’s what baby murder does and that was Margaret Sanger’s original intention Hint hint Planned Parenthood removed her name from their institution for a reason I mean they conveniently put up Planned Parenthoods in low income areas that generally had high African-American populations, just sayings. Now let’s spin moral relativism on this and say it was because they needed affordable health care solutions for aborting their children, oops planning parenthood, and please ignore the cohort effect of reduced generational population in that particular community But they’re so pro women’s rights it’s amazing the one right that the government feverishly supportive of but yet at the exact same time treated women like shit for decades Let’s put a few more things in perspective I have done adoption paperwork for multiple people looking to adopt the paperwork runs around $30,000-$50,000 a lot of nonsense to adopt some that easily could’ve been aborted A child in foster care can run the government around $220,000 if they’re never adopted and they are forced to go through the entire system, abortion solves this too An abortion cost about 270 bucks and can be covered by insurance, super cheap It is cheaper that the individual never existed God forbid we would fix the broken foster care system and make it easier for single mothers with children. Nope but abortion fixes this to Abortion is not about women’s rights because you have to get past the fact that the government has been really good at restricting women’s rights for years except for this one This is about population control and money So people need stop confusing abortion for some illegitimate right to murder a human being because you don’t wanna take care of it after you made it AaronS1978

Fred Hickson:

RNA World as precursor neatly sidesteps UBs conundrum.

Only in your little-bitty mind. First, there isn't any evidence for any RNA world. Next, there isn't any connection between the imaginary RNA world and coded biology. The problem is people like Fred are not interested in science. They only pretend to be when they think science supports their asinine agenda. For example:

It follows logically from your statement:

Wrong again, Fred. Federal laws supersede State laws. For example, several States allow for legal marijuana. The Federal law does not. You can still be busted by the feds for legally growing dope. With Roe v Wade intact, States had to follow that lead. ET

FH, the creator made us free and gave us built in moral guidelines. The things you pointed to are due to abuses of freedom. KF kairosfocus

Come off it, Querius, I have responded. RNA World as precursor neatly sidesteps UBs conundrum. All the issues of arbitrary assignment between triplet codon and aaRS becomes an evolutionary add-on that can start with one. Remember I already said "One"? Nice derail, though! ;) Fred Hickson

Fred Hickson @55,

Thanks for pointing out that federal laws become redundant with this SCOTUS (odd the sharp end of this is the Federalist Society). Adding weight to my prediction of a possible outcome.

Oh, now that you're back again, how about responding directly to Upright Biped as you promised?

Upright BiPed @644, . I don’t think Fred ever told us which type of RNA replicator he sees as the magic bullet here. Is it the type that can freely assemble itself, base by base, from a pool of available parts? That’s certainly a persnickety version. So far that version hasn’t been shown to be robust enough to even copy the RNA script causing the reaction, much less specify a protein on the side. Or maybe what Fred has in mind is the self-replicating ribozyme? That’s another tough one. But what about the cross-catalytic ligase ribozyme, from Gerald Joyce’s team? That’s the six-piece version where they create four specific RNA substrates that become linked together based on two complimentary RNA templates. Template 1 links two substrates together to create Template 2, and Template 2 does the same with the other two substrates to create Template 1. One template is 66 bases long, if I remember correctly, and the other is 78. It’s a reaction that can go on forever as long as a steady supply of the four individual substrates are created and fed into the system at balanced levels. If it falls out of balance, the system runs into troubles. The upside for Fred is that there is a short patch of bases in each template that are outside the catalytic domain, and aren’t critical – i.e. they can be changed around. Perhaps this is where Fred sees an opportunity to specify some protein? Of course, the downside is that the reaction fails in the presence of protein or other biological materials. So there’s that. When Gerald Joyce published on this cross-catalytic ligase ribozyme, he talked about the potential of forming autocatalytic networks of these replicators in order to study various concepts in replication, and he made a clear distinction between the type of templated RNA replication found in his experiments (which is based on the dynamic properties of RNA), versus the kind of replication that occurs in the living cell — that this, replication using the separate “replication machinery” of the aaRS, tRNA, ribosomes, etc. He stated “It is difficult to see how one would devise autocatalytic networks that allow optimization of a replicative machinery that is distinct from the templating properties of the molecule.“ Perhaps Fred intends to share something Gerald Joyce is missing.

To which Fred Hickson responded with

Fred Hickson @645 Excellent reference, UB. Much food for thought. RL calls still. Will get back to you in a day or so.

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-gunter-bechly-repudiates-professor-daves-attacks-against-id/#comment-759110:~:text=from%20the%20start.-,644,-Upright%20BiPed -Q Querius

F/N: let us begin to look at ways we can restore soundness. A good start is of course the charter of modern, lawful state constitutional democracy:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind [--> they were consciously universal in their appeal] requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15; note, law as "the highest reason," per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [--> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [--> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Notice, the pivot on rights, recognised as inherent to our nature and thus our creation with a common human nature. Rights, are tied to freedoms and to correlative duties, my right to life, liberty, innocent reputation etc implies your duty to respect and uphold such, implying that I cannot properly claim a right that undermines your rights or forces you to do evil to support me. That is a major coherence issue. Dig in a little deeper, let's see a note or two on Magna Carta, 1215: https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/magna-carta/legacy.html

Before penning the Declaration of Independence--the first of the American Charters of Freedom--in 1776, the Founding Fathers searched for a historical precedent for asserting their rightful liberties from King George III and the English Parliament. They found it in a gathering that took place 561 years earlier on the plains of Runnymede, not far from where Windsor Castle stands today. There, on June 15, 1215, an assembly of barons confronted a despotic and cash-strapped King John and demanded that traditional rights be recognized, written down, confirmed with the royal seal, and sent to each of the counties to be read to all freemen. The result was Magna Carta--a momentous achievement for the English barons and, nearly six centuries later, an inspiration for angry American colonists. Magna Carta was the result of the Angevin king's disastrous foreign policy and overzealous financial administration . . . . The document conceded by John and set with his seal in 1215, however, was not what we know today as Magna Carta but rather a set of baronial stipulations, now lost, known as the "Articles of the barons." After John and his barons agreed on the final provisions and additional wording changes, they issued a formal version on June 19, and it is this document that came to be known as Magna Carta. Of great significance to future generations was a minor wording change, the replacement of the term "any baron" with "any freeman" in stipulating to whom the provisions applied. Over time, it would help justify the application of the Charter's provisions to a greater part of the population. While freemen were a minority in 13th-century England, the term would eventually include all English, just as "We the People" would come to apply to all Americans in this century. While Magna Carta would one day become a basic document of the British Constitution, democracy and universal protection of ancient liberties were not among the barons' goals [--> but set precedent]

Some key provisions:

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. [Cf. new Governor Festus, in Acts 25: 16 I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face and had opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him.] + (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. + (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

Go forward to 1688/89: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

he Subject’s Rights. And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare Dispensing Power. That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall. Late dispensing Power. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall. Ecclesiastical Courts illegal. That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious. Levying Money. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall. Right to petition. That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall. Standing Army. That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law. Subjects’ Arms. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. Freedom of Election. That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free. Freedom of Speech. That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament. Excessive Bail. That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted. Juries. That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned . . . F1 Grants of Forfeitures. That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void. Frequent Parliaments. And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently.

See how underlying context of circumstances led to recognition of rights, and the sort of things the Americans expected? Notice, the underlying duties,

1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.

KF kairosfocus

If we followed the Creator’s design and reserved sex for marriage, we would save ourselves so much sorrow, trouble, and grief!

The creator designed that lust, desire, trust in women and deceit in men too, I guess. Why, I wonder. Fred Hickson

@ ET in 72

Except that I didn’t point that out.

It follows logically from your statement:

Contraception will also be in the hands of the States. As will same sex marriages. As will mixed-race marriages. All in the hands of the voters of the STATE.

Fred Hickson

Weird and very telling, how the alleged pro-science pukes are railing against science in the abortion debate. ET

Those weren't insults, chuck. I was making an astute observation. ET

Fred Hickson:

Thanks for pointing out that federal laws become redundant with this SCOTUS.

Except that I didn't point that out. ET

@14 JHolo "This includes the expenses of someone (husband, boyfriend, friend) to accompany them." Wait! But I thought you were defending abortion for a 15 yr old daughter who was raped. But here you are providing funds for any employee to kill their baby for any old reason whatsoever. So the daughter who got pregnant from a rapist was just a smokescreen to try to drum up pity for your pro-abortion beliefs. Abortion might enable people to enjoy irresponsible sex lives, BUT it actually harms women. There is risk involved in the operation. Women KNOW they are killing their babies and that is a hard thing to live with. Many suffer from depression and live life with regrets. Many are almost forced by their partners to get an abortion. If an unwanted pregnancy is the problem, let's talk about how pregnancy happens and how to avoid that as opposed to encouraging irresponsible sex and abortions if pregnancy happens. If we followed the Creator's design and reserved sex for marriage, we would save ourselves so much sorrow, trouble, and grief! tjguy

Why is it that Big Science is almost 100% in bed with the Left - pro-abortion, and pro anything else the Left stands for! What does science have to do with Leftism? Science should be objective because it is science, not biased. tjguy

Lol I read how Barrette is so illegitimate but Biden’s pick is just as brainless as he his. More comically let’s say the opinion of the not bias at all DEMcrat whining about Barrette was right and we got rid of her for a DEMcrat that would use their wise judgement and unbiased views to always support the left leaning positions With Barrette gone and a fair unbiased DEMcrat in her place Roe Vs Wade still gets overturned 5-4 Oh and I really love all of the ridiculous speculation poor little Sev keeps tossing out there you are really chicken Little right now None of those things are gonna happen this alone was a rare occurrence but for all of those little speculations you tossed out there to make it seem like the world is coming to an end and then conservative Christians are evil evil evil there would have to be an entire transformation of the country for any of those things to come to pass. I mean shit do you only deal strawmen Your speculations aren’t going to come true they don’t justify your position and I am terribly sorry that baby murder now can be voted upon at the state level Would you like me to get you a cloth to wipe your tears from your face Wow finally decision that didn’t support DEMcrats and like usual it’s totally not legit. The legit thing in reality is DEMcrat views and way of thinking AaronS1978

Seversky, it is the progressives and liberals who found a way to push an agenda through the court system, leading to the bloody error we now face. The solution is to return the court to due proportions. That starts with exposing legal positivism for what it is and restoring our understanding of law as driven by requisites of the civil peace of justice. That would automatically draw the courts back from a dangerous false position. As a key test, ask if the US DoI has force as law. If the answer is no, error. For the US DoI esp para 2 is in fact one of the most successful pieces of natural law reasoning in history, the charter of modern constitutional, liberty-respecting lawful democracy. As core natural law reasoning is based on our built in nature, once objectively successful, it is actually of universal jurisdiction, much as say the times tables are. In that context, the Constitution is a second attempt to deliver on the promise of new government, which has been successful. What it says should be understood in light of the charter of modern liberty and democracy, much as magna carta and the 1688 bill of rights serve in Common law thinking. Frankly, I would freely use the DoI here in this region, and watching lawyer heads explode would be interesting. In that context, yes, decisions of overreach need to be revisited as appropriate, and where they have sound foundation, attached to that instead, where there is a half way house, reformation is indicated. Where there is a nominalism driven attempt to call a nine sided polygon a hexagon, that requires removal and replacement with what is sound. The touchstone in all of this is built in branch on which we all sit first duties, to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour and so too fairness and justice. As the ghost of Milada Horakova reminds us, untruth is the foundation of injustice upt o and including judicial murder. KF kairosfocus

PPS, to make sure it stands out, the continuation of slavery and the legacy of slavery point in much the same direction, too. kairosfocus

Seversky goes on,

This is the same Christianity that attempted the “assimilation” of indigenous children in boarding schools where they were abused, forbidden to wear their own clothes, speak their own languages or practice their own religions.

But wait a minute, did not Seversky start off his entire rhetorical diatribe against the 'pro-life position by advocating that all children should be forced to go to failing public schools where they will be force fed a secular, i.e. "Darwin only", education, and specifically forbidden to pray and/or 'practice their religion'? Again, consistency in thought in apparently not a strong suit for Seversky. But alas, consistency in thought is certainly not what we should expect from a person who is staunchly 'pro-choice' on the one hand, but, on the other hand, also holds to a Darwinian worldview that denies the reality of choice?

The Illusion of Free Will - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.,,," - Jerry Coyne - (professor emeritus at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution) https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/

Again, consistency in thought is apparently not a strong suit for, ahem, 'pro-choice' Darwinists. Seversky goes on in his diatribe,

It is time for society to review the privileged status of religions in our society and to shore up the wall of separation between church and state so that there is no possibility of militant followers of any faith being able to mount a theocratic insurrection ever again.

It is very fitting that Seversky would end his rhetorical diatribe against the 'pro-life' position with the false doctrine of 'the wall of separation between church and state'. The term 'separation of church and state’ does not even appear anywhere in the constitution but is a term that was lifted out of context from one of Jefferson's personal letters to the Danbury Baptists, and then twisted almost 180 degrees out of its original context. The term ‘separation of church and state’, as Jefferson originally intended it, meant that the Danbury Baptists could rest assured that they were free to exercise their religion as they saw fit, completely free from any government interference. In other words, the first amendment was originally devised to protect the church from the state’s influence, not to protect the state from the church’s influence.

The Truth About “Separation of Church and State” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS6QGyWVgZY Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists – January 1, 1802 Excerpt: Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (a former KKK member),, in 1947, put forth the,, argument for a radical separation of religion and politics, he cited Jefferson’s metaphor: “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.” Jefferson’s actual aim was quite to the contrary.,,, The “wall” does not imprison the free exercise of religion. Rather, Jefferson sought to prevent the domination of particular sects, making free the religious practices of all. http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/jefferson-s-letter-to-the-danbury-baptists

In fact, the false doctrine of ‘separation of church and state’ was primarily a work of fiction that was promulgated by the notorious racist Supreme Court justice Hugo Black (i.e. a former KKK member),,,

Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state" - 2011 Excerpt: So how does this invocation of "wall of separation between church and state" become Supreme Court doctrine, extending from a casual phrase by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to an obscure comment in an 1878 Supreme Court ruling on bigamy to a pervasive doctrine of anti-religious censorship in the public square in the 21st century? Here's how: On August 11, 1921 Fr. James Coyle, a Roman Catholic priest in Birmingham, Alabama, was shot to death on the porch of his rectory by E.R. Stephensen, a local Ku Klux Klansman. Fr. Coyle had just performed a wedding between Stephensen's daughter and her Puerto Rican husband. Stephenson was defended by five lawyers, four of whom were Klan members. The fifth lawyer who volunteered to defend Stephenson was Hugo Black, a prominent local attorney. Despite the fact that the Catholic priest was unarmed and the murder was committed in public in front of witnesses, Stephensen was acquitted of murder based on "self-defense"and "temporary insanity". Defense attorney Black joined the Ku Klux Klan after the trial. In the Klan, Black was a Kladd of the Klavern, which was an initiator of new Klansmen. From The Volokh Conspiracy: ... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed... Several years later, Black ran for U.S. Senate from Alabama. He barnstormed the state, campaigning on a virulent anti-Catholic platform and demanding "a wall of separation between church and state". His strongest support came from his Klan base, and he gave many anti-Catholic "wall of separation" speeches to Klan meetings across Alabama. Black, a Democrat, won the Alabama senate seat in 1926, defeating his Republican opponent with 80.9 % of the vote. He easily won re-election in 1932, with 86.3 % of the vote. He was a staunch defender of FDR's New Deal and of Roosevelt's court-packing plan. In 1937 Roosevelt appointed Black to the Supreme Court. Despite controversy about his Klan history, Black was easily confirmed. He quickly acquired a reputation for idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution. In 1947, Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education, the landmark Establishment Clause Supreme Court decision that barred use of tax revenues to transport children to religious (Catholic) schools. Justice Black wrote: No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 [emphasis mine] In 1962, Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale, the landmark Establishment Clause Supreme Court decision that outlawed prayer in public schools. Justice Black wrote: The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government. [emphasis mine] Justice Hugo Black began his political career in the wake of his successful defense of a Klansman who murdered a Catholic priest. The modern application of the non-Constitutional doctrine "a wall of separation between church and state" derives from Black, a former Kladd of the Klavern of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan, who used his Klan base to secure a Senate seat and ultimately an appointment on the Supreme Court. The phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" played little role in jurisprudence until the mid-20th century. The doctrine has long played a large cultural role, preserved by pervasive anti-Catholic bigotry through organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, and became a 'Constitutional principle' through the jurisprudence of an anti-Catholic bigot. It is used today to suppress prayer and religious expression in all public schools in the United States. Why is it that discussions of the "separation of church and state" don't generally include the cultural and political history of the "doctrine"? Why is the central role that "separation" played in the political and judicial rise of Justice Black-- the father of modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence-- never seems to show up in New York Times Op-Ed columns or NPR's "All Things Considered"? Ever see a press release by Americans United for Separation of Church and State note the fact that "an eternal separation of church and state" was a part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda and the Klansmen's Creed, and that one of those Klansmen jurists wrote the Supreme Court opinions establishing "separation of church and state" as the law under which we live? http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html

So thus in conclusion, Seversky is found to be heavily reliant on blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations in order to try to advance his 'pro-death' position. I would like to think that Seversky has at least an ounce of integrity within him and would find it within himself to 'repent' of such over-the-top dishonesty in his debates with me. But alas, I've known Seversky for far too long. And as far as I can tell in my many years of dealing with him, Seversky simply does not care if he is caught red-handed in falsehoods over and over again, and will use any means possible, fair or foul, to try to advance his atheistic agenda. Honesty is apparently a far second as far as advancing his atheism in concerned. It is truly a sad state of affairs.

Jeremiah 18:8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.

bornagain77

Seversky at 17 states,

A black woman commenting on the decision noted that the same people crying out against abortion are also voting to defund public schools. They care much more for the rights of the unborn than they do for the born.

As usual, Seversky is distorting the issue simply for purely rhetorical purposes Christians certainly do not want their children, nor any child in America for that matter, to be denied an education. That false accusation is beyond ludicrous. Directly contrary to what Seversky is trying to imply, Christians certainly want their children, and children in general, to have the opportunity, via school vouchers, to leave the failing public school system and go to private Christian schools so that they may receive a much better education than is currently available in the failing public system..

Classical, Christian Education: Higher SAT Scores Than All Other School Types “Without Even Trying” – Tom Owens on Jan 17, 2020 One of the distinguishing features of classical education is we refuse to “teach to the test.” Instead, we immerse students in the great conversation of Western, Christian Civilization, exposing them early and often to the best minds humanity has ever produced. We seek the intellectual, moral, and spiritual development of our students above all, but when it comes to the standardized tests obsessed over in conventional schools, we are content to “let the chips fall where they may.” Yet, in following the wisdom of the ancients in our approach, the results speak for themselves. Member schools of the Association of Christian & Classical Schools (ACCS) produce students whose SAT scores are, on average, 325 points higher than public schools, 191 points higher than conventional religious schools, and 138 points higher than secular private high schools. How does this happen when most classical schools don’t formally prep for the SAT as part of the curriculum? Why does it seem like ACCS students easily handle the SAT “without even trying?” https://www.dominionschool.com/dominion-blog/classical-christian-education-higher-sat-scores-than-all-other-school-types-without-even-trying

Again, what many Christians want is simply to have the opportunity to give their children, and children in general, the best education available. Seversky apparently wants to force all children to be given an inferior education in secular public schools. Which clearly reveals that it is, in reality, Seversky and the far left, not Christians, who really don't care about 'the born', i.e. about the children. Seversky goes on in his rhetorical diatribe,

Those of us on the center and left of the political spectrum should more than ever be aware that we have a fight on our hands and playing nice with the opposition does not – and will not – work.

So is Seversky, in not so veiled terms, actually advocating for violence against those who oppose his 'pro death' position?

Pro-choice groups call for ‘Summer of Rage’ after Roe v. Wade abortion reversal Excerpt: Law enforcement agencies across the nation are bracing for an explosion of unrest from pro-choice groups Friday after the Supreme Court’s seismic decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Outraged by the decision, militant pro-abortion groups like Jane’s Revenge and others have urged sympathizers to unleash a “Summer of Rage” across the country. “Now the leash is off,” the group said in a June 14 communique in anticipation of the court’s action. “And we will make it as hard as possible for your campaign of oppression to continue. We have demonstrated in the past month how easy and fun it is to attack.” https://nypost.com/2022/06/24/scotus-roe-v-wade-abortion-reversal-could-lead-to-violence/ U.S. braces for violence against conservatives, pro-life groups with Supreme Court’s abortion ruling Excerpt: Attacks on offices tied to the Republican National Committee, GOP lawmakers, and pro-life groups have begun in anticipation of the ruling, including attacks this week where vandals spray-painted slogans and smashed windows. “We should be concerned,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, Kentucky Republican. “Democrats here need to come out and speak against the violence.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/23/us-braces-violence-against-conservatives-pro-life-/

I guess the far-left's new slogan could be 'Give me death, or I will give you death', instead of 'Give me liberty, or give me death", Might I remind Seversky that because of such tyrannical views that he currently holds, i.e. achieving his political ends by means of violence, is precisely why many conservatives are also very big proponents of the second amendment? Seversky, after the not too subtle call for violence against conservatives, goes on to state his ultimate objectives,

The first objective should be the abolition of the Supreme Court as currently constituted.

Hmm, so Seversky is apparently so upset that some unborn lives may actually be saved in some states that he wants to, basically, completely upend our government, i.e. our constitutional republic, by disbanding the Supreme Court, and/or packing the court, so that it will never, ever, have the possibility of ruling against his far-left 'pro-death', i.e. unrestricted abortion, position? How come that knee jerk 'spoiled brat' reaction from Seversky's sounds so very similar to Hitler's outlawing of any political party that opposed Nazism? Seversky goes on,

The second objective should be to expose the hypocrisy of those who make outrageous and inflammatory accusations about an abortion “Holocaust” yet excuse their God from any blame for the much larger wastage of unborn human life through miscarriages in a reproductive system designed by that God according to their belief.

So let's get this straight, Seversky's 'war plan' against conservatives is to first disband, and/or remake, the Supreme Court to rule only in his 'pro-death' favor, and his second objective is to attack God for 'immorally' allowing miscarriages? Small problem for Seversky in his quest to judge God for being morally unjust, without God there simply can be no moral basis for Seversky to judge God by.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276 “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,," - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001, pp. 38-39.

Oh well so much for Seversky being consistent in his argumentation. Seversky goes on.,

This is the same Christianity that tolerates a so-called Christian pastor who called for homosexuality to be made a capital crime for which offenders should be executed by being shot in the back of the head.

I certainly don't 'tolerate' that position, just like I don't tolerate your current 'pro-death' position that calls for killing the unborn. Moreover Seversky, you falsely accused me of personally holding this reprehensible position of killing Gays a few days ago,

Seversky, "Please point to exactly where I have ever written to you, and/or advocated for, that gay people should be killed by the state? I have never, ever, said anything remotely close to resembling that belief! Quite the contrary, in my debates with you I have often advocated that the state ought to stop sanctioning unrestricted abortion. i.e. To stop killing the unborn.,,, Thus, in my debates with you, I have been very much a ‘pro-life’ person, not a ‘pro-death’ person. My actual hope, and/or ‘position’, for “every single” gay person in America’, and even for every single atheist in America, is certainly not that they should be killed by the state, (as the state killed hundreds of thousands of Christians in Stalin’s Russia), but that gays, and atheists in general, would repent of their self-destructive lifestyles and turn to Christ. In short, my actual position is that ‘every single gay person, (and atheist), in America’ would turn from death to eternal life." https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-carl-sagan-an-intelligence-that-antedates-the-universe/#comment-758698

and Seversky, I remind readers that you never did apologize to me for making such blatantly false accusations against me. I guess unapologetically telling blatant falsehoods against those who are opposing you is justifiable just so long as you achieve your ultimate objective of unrestricted, state sponsored abortion, eh Seversky??? Seversky goes on,

This is the same Christianity that has tried to sweep under the rug the appalling abuse of children in their care by clergy.

So Seversky is rightly appalled that clergy would abuse children yet is a staunch advocate that unborn children, at whatever stage of development, should be allowed to be killed by the abortion industry??? Again, apparently consistency in thought in not a strong suit for Seversky. Might I remind Seversky that no psychopath on earth has ever done to children what the abortion industry routinely does to unborn children via 'dismemberment abortions'?

Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A. Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018) https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand) https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100 Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

bornagain77

Seversky, you know the dynamics of the American situation, where the baby boom was a product of postponed families for those hit by the depression and families after the war multiplied by the post war prosperity. The point is, birth rates respond to circumstances. In the case of poorer countries the issue is often public health, to match expected deaths. Then as public health improves there is a population boom as higher survival leads to more children becoming adults. Then as the shift in life expectancy for infants takes cultural root, you have a fall in fecundity. Reproductive behaviour is responsive to circumstances, perhaps with lags. It is dynamic not static, and in the case of post 1973, had this bad law not been passed by a court, the reproductive patterns of the US would have been different, there simply would not have been 60 million orphans with no support. That is a misrepresentation on what is widely available knowledge on demographics, which we all know or should know. Meanwhile, there is as yet no sound answer to the sorts of errors I have corrected with Mr Trudeau as stand-in for the sort of policy thinking that lies behind mass abortion as policy. KF PS, the mass killing of 1.4 billion globally is the worst mass slaughter of the innocent in history. In two months the global toll exceeds the Jewish part of the Holocaust, and in four months the overall holocaust. In a year and a bit, we exceed the usual numbers for the dead in WW2. So, holocaust is reasonable. As to the issue of knowing murder by many involved, we get into mens rea issues, many have in fact been misled through power backed dehumanisation of the unborn. When mass slaughter of the innocent and other abuses become entrenched policy on a sustained widespread basis, the post holocaust war crimes trial model is not applicable; instead a truth, reconciliation and reformation commission may offer a better way forward. kairosfocus

Jerry, one does not "retire" what is civilisation foundational, that is part of our problem. Cicero is no parody, and his points are substantial on the merits, laying a framework that is in fact demonstrably self evident as first principles; we owe and should acknowledge an intellectual debt, or has that value been tossed out too. That some wish to dismiss such, speaks loudly, not in their favour. KF kairosfocus

Fred Hickson/33

God help us!

I wouldn't hold your breath. Seversky

Kairosfocus/37

FH, you know better. I cited the epoch from c 1930 – 1964, to show relevant patterns. Population and its growth are dynamic, like an economy. KF

Birth rates are generally higher in poorer societies that wealthier ones. One effective way of driving down abortion rates is to ensure women's financial self-sufficiency and the provision of state support. But suggest the benefits of universal healthcare, generous maternity pay and leave, an adequate social security safety net and the right blanches, clutches its pearls and screams "Socialism!"

PS, There IS illegitimacy in the US Supreme Court. The most recent example is promotion of a woman so lacking in judicious temperament that she professed to be unable to distinguish women and men.

My primary concern is conversion of the Court into a de facto nine member monarchy with power to rule by decree, which for decades was responsible for many damaging decisions without sound foundation;

Which is what you now have - and will continue to have - as long as it can be packed with sympathizers to a President who uses a conservative group like the Federalist Society to draw up a list of nominees with impeccable right-wing credentials and can rely on the devious machinations of the likes of Mitch McConnell to ensure their passage through the appointments process.

Roe v Wade being arguably the worst, with its toll of 63 million plus dead.

You describe this toll of 63 million as a "Holocaust" and mass murder Are you claiming that they were killed by some global conspiracy bent on killing fetuses for some nefarious purpose of their own, regardless of the wishes of the mother or anyone else? Do you know how many of those abortions were performed through medical necessity? How would you deal with this case in Malta?

Fears for US woman's life as abortion denied in Malta

How do you justify your support for a Creator who, by your beliefs, must be responsible for a Divine Holocaust of the unborn which could have cost 25 billion lives?

As to those appointed, the Court is NOT supposed to be “representative” of a population, it is supposed to be a court of final appeal, staffed by those who the representatives of the states [actually, ambassadors to the Federal body] deem acceptable to their states, with judiciousness a key issue. A republic is not an untrammelled democracy.

And how can we trust a Court that has been packed so as to favor certain narrow political and religious interests? Seversky

ET: And SCIENCE says that life starts at conception. Just wondering . . . Does that mean child support should start at conception? Does that mean if a female illegal immigrant is impregnated by a US citizen then you can't deport the pregnant mother because she is carrying a US citizen? Can you insure a fetus and collect insurance if you miscarry? Does that mean you can sue a rapist for child support? ET:As will same sex marriages. As will mixed-race marriages. All in the hands of the voters of the STATE. Considering that blacks and women and men who didn't own land were not allowed to vote when the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights were created could those rights also be taken away? What is a 'mixed-race' marriage? Anything other than white and white? Are Syrians 'white'? Japanese? People from Afghanistan? Jews? What about someone who had a black grandfather? How about a black great grandfather? What happens to existing 'mixed-race' marriages? Would they become invalid? Would any children become illegitimate? JVL

ET/49 New insults today—fools and pukes. Irony is really lost on you, isn’t it……. chuckdarwin

Fred Hickson/33

Sixty million orphans. Where are the adoptive parents in sufficient numbers to cope? And if Clarence Thomas gets contraception banned, it will be more. God help us!

It won't just be contraception, it's going to be same-sex marriage, gay rights and racially integrated education. This court clearly has its sights set on Obergefell, Loving and Brown v Board of Education. Asserting this principle that states rights take precedence puts both the 14th and 19th Amendments under threat. It also means that, had the Civil War intervened, we could still have slave-owning as well as free states. If gay rights legislation is overturned then each state could decide whether to reinstate or enact legislation criminalizing homosexual behavior even to the extent of making it a capital offense as that so-called Christian pastor called for in Texas. Let's be in no doubt that, as there are plenty of states enacting blanket bans on abortion, there are a number who would be all too happy to impose restrictions on black voting rights (some are already doing so), ban same-sex marriage and re-introduce racial segregation in schools. This ruling in Dobbs could ultimately prove disastrous for the United States unless this Court is abolished and replaced with something less susceptible to manipulation. Seversky

Each year, 4.7–13.2% of maternal deaths can be attributed to unsafe abortion (3). In developed regions, it is estimated that 30 women die for every 100 000 unsafe abortions. In developing regions, that number rises to 220 deaths per 100 000 unsafe abortions.

Welcome to the future of the US. Replace the termination of unfeeling, unthinking masses of cells with the death of feeling, thinking humans. JHolo

I find it amusing that people always bring up the slippery slope argument when things they oppose are being discussed. Same sex marriage will lead to polygamy, will lead to inter species marriage, will lead to ET marrying a toaster. But when a slippery slope argument is bright up with respect to this ruling, and actually supported by Thomas’ own words, the same people deny that there is a slippery slope. JHolo

@ET Thanks for pointing out that federal laws become redundant with this SCOTUS (odd the sharp end of this is the Federalist Society). Adding weight to my prediction of a possible outcome. Fred Hickson

Kf, I suggest you retire Cicero. You have become a parody every time you mention him and thus not effective. There’s other ways to’ comunicate the same thoughts. Aside: I was recently learning about the De Medici’s (their part in the Renaissance) and it was during their rule in Florence that the renewed interest in the classics (Greek translations kept in monasteries) appeared. Cicero appeared in the discussions. The irony was that Cicero was retranslated back into Latin from Greek. jerry

you were pretty ambiguous and risk adding fuel to the fire by speaking so glibly.

There's always the option to ask for clarification rather than picking the most uncharitable interpretation. Not something that happens here very much. Fred Hickson

FH, >I’m not advocating it, I’m predicting it as an outcome You should be much more clear about that from now on; as-is, you were pretty ambiguous and risk adding fuel to the fire by speaking so glibly. ET, >Wow. So many clueless fools and so little time. An excellent summary, thank you. EDTA

CD, strawman, Thomas has addressed a manifestly flawed principle that should be removed from jurisprudence. Other things need to be addressed on sounder foundations, if they have them. And in some cases, we are back to, please show me a nine sided hexagon. Nominalism is not a sound principle in logic of being, which focus -- eg A is A i/l/o its core characteristics -- is again in the heart of the reasoning that urgently needs to be done but is already being side stepped. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Let us continue, Legal Positivism, a root issue: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Positivism

Legal Positivism A school of Jurisprudence whose advocates believe that the only legitimate sources of law are those written [--> laws historically have more been oral than written] rules, regulations, and principles that have been expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a governmental entity or political institution, including administrative, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies.

[--> notice how administrative escapes from executive, and has de facto law making power, often termed regulatory, also how courts are deemed law makers, these undermine primacy of the legislature in law making and accountability to the voter.]

The key to legal positivism is in understanding the way positivists answer the fundamental question of jurisprudence: "What is law?" The word "positivism" itself derives from the Latin root positus, which means to posit, postulate, or firmly affix the existence of something. Legal positivism attempts to define law by firmly affixing its meaning to written decisions made by governmental bodies that are endowed with the legal power to regulate particular areas of society and human conduct. If a principle, rule, regulation, decision, judgment, or other law is recognized by a duly authorized governmental body or official, then it will qualify as law, according to legal positivists. Conversely, if a behavioral norm is enunciated by anyone or anything other than a duly authorized governmental body or official, the norm will not qualify as law in the minds of legal positivists, no matter how many people are in the habit of following the norm or how many people take action to legitimize it. Legal positivism is often contrasted with Natural Law. According to the natural law school of jurisprudence, all written laws must be informed by, or made to comport with, universal principles of morality, religion, and justice, such that a law that is not fair and just may not rightly be called "law." For example, persons engaging in peaceful protest through civil disobedience often appeal to a higher natural law in denouncing societal practices that they find objectionable.

[--> think about the decrees under colour of law issued by Nazi Germany that robbed Jews etc of rights, leading to mass murder then their we were following legitimate authority defence at Nuremberg. And yes, this is a legitimate lesson of blood and tear soaked history.]

Legal positivists generally acknowledge the existence and influence of non-legal norms as sources to consult in evaluating human behavior, but they contend that these norms are only aspirational, for persons who contravene them suffer no immediate adverse consequences for doing so. By contrast, positivists emphasize that legal norms are binding and enforceable by the Police Power of the government, such that individuals who violate the law may be made to face serious consequences including fine, imprisonment, loss of property, or even death.

1: In short, law is what those who control the legal presses issue, including regulations with force of law and judicial decisions. Specifically, decoupled from prior root law built into and governing our nature, conferring rights, freedoms and duties. 2: Thus, we see undermining of the civil peace of justice and aggrandisement of the state or other powers with similar capability. That civil peace rests on due balance of rights, freedoms, duties in community. 3: Without recognition of such prior and unalterable law of our nature, i.e. built into us, law comes down to power, opening the door to nihilism . . . might and/or manipulation make right, rights, freedom, freedoms, truth, reason, knowledge, law and more. 4: Reductio, any frame that opens the door to nihilism is absurd and destructive. 5: Instead, let us attend to Cicero in a classic foundational discussion:

—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason [--> the reason, truth, warrant and prudence principles], implanted in nature [--> built in, attested by conscience and mind etc], which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” [--> justice and moral government] . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]

This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

6: From this, we many articulate a sounder frame for law, rooted in our nature and such first, branch on which we all sit, principles. KF kairosfocus

Wow. So many clueless fools and so little time. The Supreme Court did the correct thing by putting the issue in the hands of the States. All that happened was the truth in that the US Constitution does not say anything about abortion. There aren't any such rights. And SCIENCE says that life starts at conception. Weird and very telling, how the alleged pro-science pukes are railing against science in the abortion debate. Contraception will also be in the hands of the States. As will same sex marriages. As will mixed-race marriages. All in the hands of the voters of the STATE. ET

Seversky/17 Perhaps while Thomas is busy rolling back legal contraception and same-sex marriage, the court should reach farther into the past and overturn Loving v. Virginia. As the old saw says, be careful what you wish for……. chuckdarwin

Fred Hickson:

You know as well as I do that 60 million orphans would be an impossible burden on the US and economic limits would kick in.

So, let's allow the slaughter of the unborn? Are you daft? Why don't we just start offing the old, the disabled and the handicapped? Or, better yet, just allow wild-west laws to pare down the populations. ET

FH, you proceed on your agenda of ad homs, here patently because a woman sitting on the Court agreed with the majority. Ms Barrett was adequately qualified and was duly found so. You continue evading the main illegitimacy, the Court becoming a nine member monarchy with power to rule by decree, with the shoddy reasoning tacked on to the policy intent in Roe v Wade being a manifest case in point of just how ill founded that rise to power beyond what was due was and is. The matter is now back where it should have remained, the states and their voters. They now need to rethink the whole frame of law and justice, which takes us back to Cicero as start-point: The first, built in law pivots on justice and truth, untruth being the key foundation stone of injustice. Accordingly, we now must attend to duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience [a built in guide], neighbour, so too fairness and justice etc. And yes, that first law is about first duties, our rationality is morally governed, we are morally governed [not wholly programmed by instincts], law cannot be soundly separated from justice and other canons of moral government. KF kairosfocus

an outcome that is no longer fanciful.

Biggest obstacle is what will be the money? Most likely outcome is refusal to obey laws by political area. The Democrats set this up with their establishment of Sanctuary cities/areas to avoid immigration laws. So a precedence is there.

Dems Pause January 6 Hearings To Call For Insurrection

https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-pause-january-6-hearings-to-call-for-insurrection The real question is has anything really changed and the reaction to this is just feigned indignation? Hypocrisy is the one common thing in all this. jerry

Predictably: https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1540362024051408897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw >>Justin Trudeau @JustinTrudeau Officiel du gouvernement - Canada The news coming out of the United States is horrific. My heart goes out to the millions of American women who are now set to lose their legal right to an abortion. I can’t imagine the fear and anger you are feeling right now. 11:51 AM · Jun 24, 2022·Twitter for iPhone Justin Trudeau @JustinTrudeau · 20h Officiel du gouvernement - Canada Replying to @JustinTrudeau No government, politician, or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. I want women in Canada to know that we will always stand up for your right to choose.>> 1: Enabling of mass slaughter of our living posterity, and as this is international, 1.4 billion and rising at about 1 million per week. 2: The pivot is, what is a right? A binding, moral claim to be supported in a particular way rooted in one's dignity and worth as a human being. 3: As a direct result, to properly claim a right, one must first manifestly be in the right, so that others have a corresponding duty of such support. 4: In this context, there can be no right to take another person's life at will, life being the first right without which there can be no other rights. 5: Where, obviously, the unborn child is genetically distinct from her or his mother, indeed half the time he is not even the same sex as his mother. 6: So, this is not the body of the mother. 7: Notice, too, how rapidly, right to do what one wishes with her/his body evaporated in the face of pressure and demand to be vaccinated. 8: In this context, fear, anger etc need to be rethought. KF kairosfocus

But now you’re suggesting the breakup of the US in response!

I'm not advocating it, I'm predicting it as an outcome that is no longer fanciful. Fred Hickson

Ms Barrett, she is quite clearly a competent jurist...

Three years as a circuit judge? Give me a break. She was pushed through for her political views. Fred Hickson

FH, >God help us! Did you just ask our maker for his help? Wasn't expecting that. But glad you are at least open to the possibility. Of course you know the 60M stat is an argument against overturning RvW based on the consequences. As I said above, once an institution gets into its own equilibrium (evil though it may be), backing out of that situation by most paths (like overturning RvW suddenly) is going to create new pain points with absolute certainty. A voluntary changing of hearts and minds (which wasn't going to happen) would have been a less painful route back out. All this just points to how unmoored SCOTUS became over the last century or so. But now you're suggesting the breakup of the US in response! Nice. If I need a helpful, bloodless way out of this mess, I will consult someone else. EDTA

FH, I know you wish to try an ad hom game, distractive from the stark reality of gross error in 1973 sustained for many years and directly enabling the slaughter of 63 million of living posterity. The reality is, the key illegitimacy was a decision on emanations and penumbras etc. As to Ms Barrett, she is quite clearly a competent jurist, so your attempted objection backfires, it shows the weakness of your fundamental case, what support is there that can stand the light of day for 25,000 abortions per week, avg across nearly half a century in the US, gutting the first right, life. KF PS, Notice, you side stepped the key illegitimacy, the transformation of the court into a monarchy. that needs to be addressed. Similarly, the idea that law is what those who control legal presses issue is to be corrected. kairosfocus

PS, There IS illegitimacy in the US Supreme Court. Undeniable! And if you compare the qualifications of the appointee in waiting with those of Amy Coney Barrett it is starkly illustrative of Barrett's illegitimate position. Fred Hickson

The hypothetical 60 million orphans because the people in Fred's leftist tribe hate the idea of taking responsibility for their own actions. Lets kill the baby instead. Andrew asauber

FH, you know better. I cited the epoch from c 1930 - 1964, to show relevant patterns. Population and its growth are dynamic, like an economy. KF PS, There IS illegitimacy in the US Supreme Court. The most recent example is promotion of a woman so lacking in judicious temperament that she professed to be unable to distinguish women and men. But that is a remote consequence. My primary concern is conversion of the Court into a de facto nine member monarchy with power to rule by decree, which for decades was responsible for many damaging decisions without sound foundation; Roe v Wade being arguably the worst, with its toll of 63 million plus dead. As to those appointed, the Court is NOT supposed to be "representative" of a population, it is supposed to be a court of final appeal, staffed by those who the representatives of the states [actually, ambassadors to the Federal body] deem acceptable to their states, with judiciousness a key issue. A republic is not an untrammelled democracy. kairosfocus

Or more correctly, SCOTUS has watered Trump's seeds! Fred Hickson

KF, you can't have it both ways. You know as well as I do that 60 million orphans would be an impossible burden on the US and economic limits would kick in. So let's stick to the fact that an unrepresentative and illegitimate supreme court has sown the seed either of it's own abolition of the breakup of the US. Fred Hickson

FH, first, it would not be 60 million orphans, it would be a different population similar to how families and individuals adjusted their reproductive patterns to fit the Depression, war and postwar era. Second, that contraceptives in general would be banned is a strawman caricature. That we see this instead of justification of how our living posterity in the womb cannot reasonably be seen as members of our race with right to life, speaks. Likewise, it is interesting that there seems to be limited recognition that the decision is about the limits of the Supreme Court and of legal reasoning on law, restoring status quo ante. It is the states and voters, the default level of government envisioned in your Constitution, which now has to work its way through the issues. With the first right on the table, life, it will be interesting indeed to see how this will be thought through. KF kairosfocus

Sixty million orphans. Where are the adoptive parents in sufficient numbers to cope? And if Clarence Thomas gets contraception banned, it will be more. God help us! Fred Hickson

FH, your hyperskepticism speaks, the figure is comparably historically credible to the Holocaust's numbers; this is not a mere assumption, so your loaded context collapses. The global figure drawn from UN and Guttmacher is about 1.4 billions, I usually do a simple calculation and see 800+ millions, currently mounting at about another million per week. We are dealing with a global horror. KF PS, Unwanted so it's open season is self refuting. PPS, You also suggest that such children would be merely a burden on the state; a further patent fallacy and no excuse for mass killing. Instead, if we had a half generation born and growing, the population dynamics would shift [cf. the baby boom vs the earlier depression, the boom was mostly small to middling families, coming from Depression era families having children late and other new families in the great postwar oil wave and consumer society productivity surge] and we are speaking of a massive productivity and innovation resource. kairosfocus

I hear the "sixty million lives" claim a lot. Assuming for the moment that this figure is credible, what would have happened to these unwanted babies? The US is not high on the list of countries with effective social care. Fred Hickson

JH, no, this is a public forum, and your responses make plain that there is a major issue of dehumanisation and inconsistency that has to be faced. Whatever happened to those attending schools in Canada [and see here on a different take, where note up to WW1, most casualties in wars were due to communicable diseases, and the antibiotic era was transformative], the issue in the USA is not the claimed general discredit of the Christian church, but instead, first principles of law and government, including the first right, life. Where, the identity and so key characteristics of our living posterity in the womb are crucial, as is where properly lieth the benefit of doubts. Surely, life. Further to which, having seen nearly half a century of pernicious effects, the US Supreme Court has said, the case was decided on wrong principles, as was Casey, and we roll back to status quo ante. Now, the people of the states will have to decide, where the principles at stake pivot on core issues of justice, law, government, so too the branch on which we all sit ciceronian first duties of reason, which are first law. That is duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, thus fairness and justice, etc. [The etc appends the body of "highest reason[ing]" that articulates the framework of government and law.] And given concerns on election quality, beyond a certain point it is not who voted, but who counts and what is counted. This has potential to spin out into a crisis of civilisation. KF kairosfocus

KF: JH, sad though whatever happened in those schools

Take it up with KRock. I was just responding to him. JHolo

Seversky I’ve not attacked or commented much on your posts in a while BUT that post you dropped is literally the largest collection of insane nonsense I’ve seen you post in a long time The only thing you wrote that was even kind of correct and remotely truthful was it is a Christian victory I’m a Catholic part of the pro life movement and have been fighting this for years. You’re insane baby murder cult believes it is some part of some human right which I believe is Semantic word play no differently than Planned Parenthood a.k.a. the abortion clinic Without getting into all the details of that crazy post of yours from, defunding schools, to insane Christian nationalists and clergy child abuse, I’m going clear a fees things up about what really happen here You did not lose the right to baby murder it’s simply went to the states so you can trust the scotus or I guess you will if they do the most politically liberal thing they can since the liberal way of thinking is the only way of thinking Anyways they made a ruling and it was 6-3 so it was decisive What has happened here, is that the right to baby murder will be left to a vote at the state level Gone are they days where you and your ilk force people like me to be quiet and support your baby murder right. Now myself and many MILLIONS like me who find you right to be barbaric can now try stop it or at least not be forced to support your gross human killing procedure This isn’t some stupid Christian conspiracy caused by Christian that abused clergy children! Are you that stupid? I can’t believe how insane you are. I am genuinely angry that this is what you believe I am terribly sorry this decision upsets you But all that has happened is that the gag ball that you and your awful little baby murder cult used to keep people like myself from voicing their opinion has been removed Now if you want your state to continue to murder babies go vote for it like you’re supposed to and then except the majority vote like in standard democracy And if your mother had exercised her magic right to murder babies you wouldn’t be here voicing you’re insane opinion…….. AaronS1978

Hello?!!! It's solely up to the States, now. That is all that has happened. It was always stupid to think the US Constitution protected the mass slaughter of our most vulnerable. ET

@JHolo #22 "Except that nobody said “mass graves”. But they have found 1800 unmarked graves so far. And they have only begun." Oh yes they did! In fact, they (e.g., the media, politicians, social justice warriors, academics, and so on) called it Canada's own holocaust—a mass genocide. The prime minster had flags lowered around the country for six months. Others went into a state of self-flogging, lashing themselves over and over and over. Our country is still on the apology tour. You mean 1800 unmarked graves from cemeteries they already knew about. None of these cemeteries were a secrete—they've always known about them. "Most of these graves were not originally unmarked, but the church, in their ultimate compassion, ordered that most of the grave markers be removed." I wasn't aware the church admitted to ordering the removal of the grave markers? Curious, where did you hear this? KRock

JH, sad though whatever happened in those schools is, do you realise 4,100 that you are so exercised over is less than one thousandth of 63 millions? Indeed, it is a sixth of the weekly average. Or, are you indulging in a familiar tactic, dehumanising the victims? KF kairosfocus

EDTA, it seems fixing a major and spreading error of interpretation and linked over-reach is precisely what the decision does, returning to status quo ante. KF PS, we are seeing some pretty ugly sentiments upthread; much of it pretty clearly confession by projection to the despised other. Maybe, those saying such things need to realise that the side they so obviously despised, patiently argued and worked for 49 years, even as the toll mounted up at 25,000/ week, precisely because they valued the balance of freedom under law. I add, we are seeing how mass blood guilt warps. kairosfocus

Seeing that Intelligent Design advocates on UD are, for the most part, pro-life, and seeing that Darwinists on UD are, for the most part, 'pro-death', the question naturally arises, "Why are Darwinists so obsessed with death?" Well the answer turns out to be quite simple, they are merely worshiping their creator, i.e. Death!

How Has Darwinism Negatively Impacted Society? – John G. West – January 11, 2022 Excerpt: Death as the Creator A third big idea fueled by Darwin’s theory is that the engine of progress in the history of life is mass death. Instead of believing that the remarkable features of humans and other living things reflect the intelligent design of a master artist, Darwin portrayed death and destruction as our ultimate creator. As he wrote at the end of his most famous work: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”13 https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/how-has-darwinism-negatively-impacted-society/

Verse:

Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

Of note:

Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

bornagain77

KRock: You mean the same boarding school(s) where they found all those mass graves? Oh wait.

Except that nobody said “mass graves”. But they have found 1800 unmarked graves so far. And they have only begun. But the number of children who died at residential schools and not returned to their parents is approximately 4100. This is not contested. Most of these graves were not originally unmarked, but the church, in their ultimate compassion, ordered that most of the grave markers be removed. JHolo

When you set up an institution (abortion or whatever), enshrine and ensconce it, and work it thoroughly through the fabric of society, and THEN suddenly rip a major piece out from under the thing, I would expect all hell to break loose, just as it is. It would be like trying to dismantle Social Security or any other entrenched thing. (I'm pro-life, but making a different sort of point here.) So this upending of things has people wanting to scrap SCOTUS? Or even the whole Constitution? How about we fix the problem(s) with Constitutional interpretation that led to this and other messes in the first place. Maybe that would be a better place to start than having a real (and bloody) revolution. EDTA

@Seversky #17 "It is time for society to review the privileged status of religions in our society and to shore up the wall of separation between church and state so that there is no possibility of militant followers of any faith being able to mount a theocratic insurrection ever again." I say society needs to shore up the wall to keep left-leaning-lunatics from holding any sort of political office in the US and Canada, or any western country for that matter?! "This is the same Christianity that attempted the “assimilation” of indigenous children in boarding schools where they were abused, forbidden to wear their own clothes, speak their own languages or practice their own religions." You mean the same boarding school(s) where they found all those mass graves? Oh wait. KRock

This is not the work of conservatives. Liberal-demo(no)crats did that to wake-up their army of zombies for the elections. After elections will be re-reversed . Lieutenant Commander Data

Relatd: There is no evidence to support that. “Our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Except for Thomas’s words:

In a passage blasting jurisprudence around the 14th Amendment, Thomas said abortion was not a form of “liberty” protected under the due process clause. He then expressly named the cases that guaranteed the rights to contraception, same-sex relations, and same-sex marriage — Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), respectively — as being appropriate for the court to “reconsider” given they relied on similar reasoning. “We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.

I’m sure that KF and others are doing cartwheels. Sad. JHolo

A black woman commenting on the decision noted that the same people crying out against abortion are also voting to defund public schools. They care much more for the rights of the unborn than they do for the born. Judge Clarence Thomas also let the cat out of the bag by writing that this decision opens the way to overturn rights to contraception, gay rights and gay marriage.

381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be reserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66. For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to“correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amdt.

In other words this is not just about abortion, this is the first victory for the Christian nationalist right in their long-term campaign to overturn all of those previously approved rights. Those of us on the center and left of the political spectrum should more than ever be aware that we have a fight on our hands and playing nice with the opposition does not - and will not - work. The first objective should be the abolition of the Supreme Court as currently constituted. Clarence Thomas should not have been approved for a seat on the bench in the first place and his wife's involvement in the January 6th insurrection plot further undermines any claim to our respect. The Trump nominees lied under oath when they pretended Roe was settled law. This court is deceitful and corrupt and needs to be re-constituted in a different form that cannot be manipulated by would-be dictators for their own ends. The rallying cry should now be "Scrap SCOTUS!" By this decision they have forfeited any trust we might once have had in the impartiality of their decisions so it is time for them to be replaced. The second objective should be to expose the hypocrisy of those who make outrageous and inflammatory accusations about an abortion "Holocaust" yet excuse their God from any blame for the much larger wastage of unborn human life through miscarriages in a reproductive system designed by that God according to their belief. This is the same Christianity that tolerates a so-called Christian pastor who called for homosexuality to be made a capital crime for which offenders should be executed by being shot in the back of the head. This is the same Christianity that has tried to sweep under the rug the appalling abuse of children in their care by clergy. This is the same Christianity that attempted the "assimilation" of indigenous children in boarding schools where they were abused, forbidden to wear their own clothes, speak their own languages or practice their own religions. It is time for society to review the privileged status of religions in our society and to shore up the wall of separation between church and state so that there is no possibility of militant followers of any faith being able to mount a theocratic insurrection ever again. Seversky

Andrew: Do you do this for other things? I figured if it was out of kindness you wouldn’t limit it to one thing.

Yes. We offer it for other medical procedures that are not offered in their state or country. This part is obviously not used by many employees in the US, but it is used by employees in other countries. Usually for experimental, not scam, treatments. JHolo

"will cover costs for any employee to travel out of state, or out of country, to..." JH, Do you do this for other things? I figured if it was out of kindness you wouldn't limit it to one thing. Andrew asauber

My company has a couple hundred employees in the US. Obviously not a large number. But I have already issued a notification to all US staff, as have many large employers in the US, that we will cover costs for any employee to travel out of state, or out of country, to secure a safe abortion. This includes the expenses of someone (husband, boyfriend, friend) to accompany them. And before any idiot claims that we are doing this for a selfish profit based reason, we also offer 18 month fully paid paternal leave. And, before any other idiot chimes in, our workforce is approximately 70% female. And over 50% in upper management. JHolo

Relatd: There is no evidence to support that.

Delusion does not become you. JHolo

JH at 11, There is no evidence to support that. “Our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” relatd

I suspect this ruling, the Miranda ruling, the public funding of religious schools, and the concealed weapons ruling will have a big impact on the mid-term elections. Court decisions on same sex marriage and transgendered rights will just be the icing on the law-fare cake. JHolo

Another clip: https://www.wnd.com/2022/06/roe-overturned-supremes-call-1973-decision-abuse-judicial-authority/

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on Friday overturned the 1973 abortion precedent set in Roe v. Wade, a move that now will return oversight of the nation's lucrative abortion industry to the individual states. The ruling, which had been leaked apparently by a court insider to reporters several weeks ago, said stare decisis, the doctrine of recognizing previously precedents, "does not compel unending adherence to Roe's abuse of judicial authority." "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and (related case) Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division." The court majority said, "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. 'The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.' … That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand." The court bluntly said, "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion: Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives." Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, summarized the years-long battle over Roe succinctly: "Life wins."

KF kairosfocus

I think people don't realize what was happening in the late 1960s. Radicals formed groups to promote abortion in the U.S. 1969 - The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws or NARAL, was formed. Today, people are being told that most Americans support permissive abortion. The truth from the late 1960s tells a different story. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55401/an-ex-abortionist-speaks relatd

So, the 1973 ruling was the result of interested lawyers bringing lawsuits to get the ruling they wanted from interested judges. It was not the result of a scholarly examination of the Constitution. Andrew asauber

A few comments about the original ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court cited "penumbras" and "emanations" from the Constitution and a vague right to privacy as reasons for their decision. Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade was Norma McCorvey. She never got an abortion and became pro-life. relatd

"Have you ever taken your daughter to an abortion clinic to abort a fetus “fathered” by a violent rapist?" No. But what you really mean is abort a human child. The child is innocent, yet it's the child whose life is destroyed. Do you really think that's where the justice should be administered? On the baby? I suspect you really don't think that's fair to the baby. Better to pretend it's not a baby, right. Makes you feel better? Andrew asauber

Andrew: I don’t think you even realize what you are saying.

No. I assure you, I know exactly what I am saying. Have you ever taken a 15 year old daughter to an abortion clinic to abort a fetus “fathered” by a violent rapist? JHolo

"I am so glad that myself, our daughters and grandkids don’t live in the US." JH, This is a little funny, because abortion destroys daughters and grandkids, among other varieties of innocent people. I don't think you even realize what you are saying. Andrew asauber

Be prepared for a gearing up of an illegal abortion industry and an increased death rate due to botched abortions. I am so glad that myself, our daughters and grandkids don’t live in the US. JHolo

F/N: I believe we need to refocus on one of those "obscure" [--> foundational, historic] references, here Cicero on law:

—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man.

[--> Note, how justice and our built in nature as a morally governed class of creatures are highlighted; thus framing the natural law frame: recognising built-in law that we do not create nor can we repeal, which then frames a sound understanding of justice. Without such an anchor, law inevitably reduces to the sort of ruthless, nihilistic might- and- manipulation- make- "right,"- "truth,"- "knowledge,"- "law"- and- "justice"- etc power struggle and chaos Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X.]

We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason [--> centrality of reason], implanted in [--> esp. our rational, responsible] nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” [--> core of justice] This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. [--> a pervasive so self evident (as, undeniable) first principle] They therefore conceive that the voice of [--> sound!] conscience is a law, that moral prudence[--> including, warrant on right reason] is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

KF kairosfocus

DEVELOPING, the US Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade (is it cry havoc?) kairosfocus